Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Thomas William Stamford, Esquire, Member for the Borough of Leeds, West Division, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Port Facilities, River Tees

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects that the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive will report to him on the priority that should be given to steel allocation for the new deep-water quay in the River Tees; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received the report of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive on the allocation of steel for the construction of the deep-water quay at Middlesbrough; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): As the result of a recommendation by the Docks and Inland Waterways

Executive, dealing with port facilities in the Tees area, the British Transport Commission have asked them to proceed with the preparation of a scheme under Section 66 of the Transport Act. The purpose of the scheme will be to ensure, by unified control, the best possible use of existing facilities, and to enable the problem of future development to be considered against the wider background of the port as a whole, without the complications attendant on divided ownership and responsibility.
In these circumstances and having regard to the continuing need to limit capital investment, the proposal to provide new berths in the River Tees has been considered in relation to other projects and, in accordance with the Executive's recommendation, I am not prepared to authorise the commencement of this work at present.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the deep anxiety which exists on Teesside about the lack of progress of this scheme and of the fact that there is something like £40 million or £50 million worth of development in this area, will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again in a more favourable light?

Mr. Barnes: As my hon. Friend knows: this has occupied a good deal of my attention and I have considered it very fully, but, as I have indicated in my reply, in relation to other projects, especially port projects, throughout the country, I regret that I cannot reconsider the decision.

Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what projects can possibly be more important than this one to Middlesbrough?

Mr. Barnes: Not in rely to a supplementary question.

Railway Thefts

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport what was the amount of pilferage on the railways in 1938, 1946 and 1947, respectively.

Mr. Barnes: Separate figures for pilferage are not available, but the amounts paid by the railway companies in respect of claims for articles lost or stolen in 1938, 1946 and 1947, were, respectively. £180,462, £2,441,023 and £2,671,383.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister able to confirm that the figure for last year is even more disastrous than for 1947, and will he say what the Railway Executive are doing to save this wholesale loss?

Mr. Barnes: As the hon. Member knows, last year is a matter for the British Transport Commission, but figures have been got out and I have arranged for them to be forwarded to the hon. Member.

Pedestrian Crossings (Regulations)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to lay before Parliament the new regulations which will finally clarify the rights and duties of motor traffic and pedestrians in the use of authorised road crossings.

Mr. Barnes: New regulations relating to pedestrian crossing places have been drafted and I am about to consult interested organisations on them. I hope to lay the regulations as soon as this consultation has been completed.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that conditions are still chaotic, and that with the increased number of summer visitors to London the more speedily these regulations can be made operative the better for the prevention of deaths on the roads?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. and gallant Member is aware that there is a statutory obligation upon the Minister to consult various organisations. I find that that takes a little time.

Road Accidents

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information as to the effects of the special pedestrian traffic week from 3rd to 9th April last; and whether there has been any substantial fall in the number of road accidents as a result.

Mr. Barnes: I cannot at present add much to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Central (Colonel Hutchison) on 11th April. The improvement in the behaviour of road users noted during the week will, I hope, be maintained. I cannot yet answer the last part of the Question, since detailed

analysis of the accident figures for April has not yet been completed.

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the number of accidents during the three years. 1946, 1947 and 1948, caused by the colliding of motor vehicles with cattle straying on to the highway; and whether, in view of the increase in fast moving road traffic, he will consider legislation placing a legal obligation on the owner of land abutting on to the highway to maintain hedges or fences so as to prevent his animals from straying on to the highway.

Mr. Barnes: I regret that this information is not available. A system of detailed road accident statistics was started on 1st January last which will enable such particulars to be extracted and examined. On the present evidence I do not feel justified in considering so far-reaching a measure as that suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Oliver: Will my right hon. Friend consult the Attorney-General to see whether something cannot be done in this direction to remove this anachronism, which entitles owners of land abutting the highway to be negligent and cause injury to other people through their animals straying, particularly at night?

Mr. Barnes: I have no objection to consulting my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but this is a very far-reaching proposal.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if he consults the Attorney-General on the matter he may discover that the proposed change in the law, so far from being a far-reaching matter of policy, is a very simple and long overdue reform, and that he may then be able to answer the Question a little more favourably?

Mr. Barnes: For the moment we will share that hope together.

Highway Code (Pedestrians)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that it was usual before the introduction of the Highway Code for the public to walk on the right side of the pavement and that the recommendation in the Highway Code was that the left side should be used, he will publicise the wishes of


the authorities as expressed in the Highway Code, which is not generally read by pedestrians.

Mr. Barnes: The Highway Code does not go quite so far as suggested by my hon. Friend, but advises against walking alongside the kerb in the same direction as the nearer stream of traffic. I will consider whether anything can usefully be done to make this advice more generally known.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Will the Minister agree that the best advice which he can give to the people will be to keep well to the left during the next 12 or 13 months?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Royal Ordnance Factories

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Supply in how many Royal Ordnance factories schemes for sick leave with full pay have been started; and what has been the rate of absenteeism subsequently as compared with the previous rate.

Month
1948–1949
1947–1948
1946–1947
1945–1946
1944–1945
1943–1944






Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


September
…
…
…
3·5
2·5
3·0
4·7
5·7
6·2


October
…
…
…
5·1
2·8
3·2
5·2
5·8
6·4


November
…
…
…
6·0
2·9
3·4
5·3
5·4
7·4


December
…
…
…
6·1
2·7
2·9
5·1
5·3
7·6


January
…
…
…
7·6
3·2
4·5
6·1
6·7
7·2


February
…
…
…
8·1
3·1
5·0
5·5
6·1
6·5


March
…
…
…
9·0
2·7
4·3
4·8
5·3
6·1


April
…
…
…
7·1
2·4
3·0
3·6
4·7
5·3

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Supply why the labour cost in the production in Royal Ordnance factories of electrical ceramics, mining machinery and oilfield equipment in 1947–48 was, respectively, 105 per cent., 82 per cent. and 72 per cent. above the estimate.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Royal Ordnance factories undertook this work to meet acute shortages of supplies in this country. The type of production was a specialised one, of which they had had no previous experience.

Brigadier Rayner: Does the Minister appreciate that the Auditor-General called attention to these figures in his recent report, and does he think that a private

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Brigadier Rayner: Is the Minister aware that since the scheme was brought in at the Royal Ordnance Factory at Pontypool the absenteeism on sick leave has risen from 3 per cent. to 17 per cent., and does he think that we can afford that sort of thing at the present time?

Mr. Strauss: I have not the individual figures for the Royal Ordnance Factories.

Following is the answer:

The scheme for paid sick leave for Government industrial employees applies to all Royal Ordnance factories and came into operation in September, 1948. The following table shows the percentage of working days lost by industrial employees of the Royal Ordnance factories on account of absence covered by medical certificate in each of the eight months following the introduction of the scheme, with comparable figures for the preceding five years:

business would get very far on that kind of estimating?

Mr. Strauss: These are special jobs, usually for short runs, carried out in order to remove some acute shortage which has been holding up some export or other, and the Ordnance factories have not been making these goods under ordinary commercial conditions.

Official Car Service

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply how many of the 37 new cars purchased for the official car service this year are for the purpose of replacing old cars; what mileages have these old cars completed; and how they are being disposed of.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Twenty-six. Twenty-three of the cars being replaced had been previously used by the Services and there is no record of their total mileage. The remaining three, which are 10 h.p. models, have each completed about 50,000 miles. The old cars which cannot be repaired economically for reissue to Government Departments will be sold by auction.

Mr. Erroll: Does not the answer show that the service is still expanding quite unnecessarily, and that old cars are being disposed of before they have done a proper mileage?

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that it shows anything of the sort.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the Minister say why it is not possible to show what mileage a Service vehicle has done? That is something new.

Mr. Strauss: Apparently their mileages are not all recorded, or the speedometers are faulty.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply what approximate period of time elapses between his placing an order for a new car for the official car service and its receipt by him from the makers.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: New cars for the official car service are included in orders placed by the Ministry of Supply for cars for all Government Departments. First delivery begins about six months after the placing of an order and it takes from nine to 18 months to complete the order.

Mr. Erroll: Is it not the case that in view of the short time that elapses, namely, only six months, the Minister of Supply is able to secure a considerable priority through his influence over steel allocations?

Mr. Strauss: No, there is no truth at all in that statement.

Printing Machinery

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Minister of Supply whether, having regard to the obsolescence of much of the printing-plant in this country, and the consequent disadvantage at which British trade and technical journals are placed in competition with similar periodicals published overseas, he will permit the retention in this country of sufficient printing-plant to

replace machinery no longer capable of high-standard production.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: During the last six months more printing machinery has been available to the home market, owing to increased production. My Department is at present reviewing the distribution, in consultation with the Board of Trade, to see what further help can be given to British printers.

Mr. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what valuable ambassadors trade journals of this kind can be, if properly produced, and that they will not fulfil that function if they are not properly produced?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (LIGHTING)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Works whether the specialist committee which was asked to consider the lighting in the Commons Chamber has yet reported.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): Yes. The specialists consider that the lighting could be improved by using pendant diffusers. I propose to fit some of these as an experiment, provided the authorities concerned agree.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Works why since lighting restrictions in the streets have been relaxed, it has not been possible more satisfactorily to light the corridors and lobbies in the Palace of Westminster; and in particular why the main chandelier in the Central Lobby is not used.

Mr. Key: I am making such improvements in the lighting of the corridors and lobbies as can be effected having regard to the financial provision for the year. The main chandelier in the Central Lobby cannot be used until a new switchboard has been installed. This switchboard will be provided for the new Chamber.

Mr. Beswick: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would agree that it would be possible to make this House a little less like a morgue in the morning without placing any undue financial strain upon the Exchequer?

Mr. Key: I am going to the limit of the Estimate which has been granted; I cannot go beyond it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL SUPPLIES

Hospital Car Service

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what amount of petrol was granted for hospital car service throughout the country for the first quarter of 1949 compared with the first quarter of 1948.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): The amount of petrol granted to the hospital car service throughout the United Kingdom during the first quarter of 1949 was 225,026 gallons as compared with 76,491 gallons for the corresponding period of 1948.

Midwives

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the inadequacy of the existing petrol allowance to many domiciliary midwives, he will issue instructions to all regional petroleum officers that special consideration should be given to all such applications for petrol.

Mr. Gaitskell: Regional petroleum officers have standing instructions to meet in full the reasonable requirements of all certified midwives. If the hon. Member knows of any midwife who is not able to obtain enough petrol for her work, I shall be glad to look into the case.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Will the right hon. Gentleman not only look into individual cases, but into the general policy? Is he aware that even those midwives who are lucky enough to have cars are seriously handicapped in their work by the inadequacy of the petrol allowance which they are granted?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, there is no evidence whatever to that effect, but, as I say, if the hon. Member has an individual case in mind, I will certainly look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Drift Mining

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has received a report on the successful working of a

drift mine at Oakwood Grange, Cossall; and whether he can make a statement on the possibility in certain areas of obtaining coal which is near the surface by drift mining instead of by opencast methods.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, not on this particular drift mine. But a number of drift mines are of course being operated at present and I have in fact visited some of them. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the evidence given by the National Coal Board to the Select Committee on Estimates on the production and marketing of opencast coal, which made it clear that the Board were already developing drift mines to the greatest extent possible. There is full consultation between my Ministry and the National Coal Board before any decision to extract coal by opencast working is taken and if the Board indicate that drift mining might be appropriate, this alternative is fully considered. My hon. Friend will however appreciate that the coal is extracted much more quickly and in larger quantities by opencast methods, since in drift mining a certain amount of coal near the surface has to be left unworked.

Mr. Cocks: Will the Minister consider the possibility of substituting drift mining for opencast mining at Greasley in Nottinghamshire when the matter comes before him for consideration, as the people there are greatly opposed to their amenities being destroyed by the latter method?

Mr. Gaitskell: I will certainly look into that question.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that it is not only a matter of amenity but the serious and permanent waste of good agricultural land, and that if drift mining could be substituted we should retain the agricultural land and presumably get the coal as well?

Mr. Gaitskell: In the recent Debate I dealt fully with this matter. Some of the agricultural experts who appeared before the Select Committee on Estimates were more opposed to drift mining than to opencast mining from the point of view of restoring the land for agricultural use.

Bunkers (Shipments)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the shortage of bunkers; that this shortage is delaying the turn-round of vessels in United Kingdom ports; and whether he will take immediate action to rectify this matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Although shipments for foreign bunkers at United Kingdom ports and for coaling stations abroad have been about 20,000 tons more this year than in the corresponding period of last year, I understand there have been a few cases of delay due to a number of vessels requiring bunkers at the same time. The National Coal Board are doing everything possible to overcome these difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVORCE DECREES (REGISTRATION)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Attorney-General whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the Denning Committee's recommendation that a register of all decrees of divorce and nullity should be kept at the principal registry in London, and with the Registrar of Marriages.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): A register of all decrees, whether made in London or the provinces, is in fact kept at the Principal Divorce Registry. I do not think that the utility of requiring decrees to be noted in marriage registers by superintendent registrars would be in any way commensurate with the expense and labour involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Extra Rations (Agricultural Workers)

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the discrimination between the agricultural worker and the agricultural smallholder in respect of extra rations; and whether he will extend to the latter category the extra rations already allowed to the former.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Allowances for seasonal farming

operations are already available to smallholders and agricultural workers alike. We are unable to extend the special cheese ration to self-employed workers since, as a general rule, they are able to make arrangements for obtaining a midday meal.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, although under form S.A.4 (AG) farm workers are allowed extra seasonal allowances for the hoeing and singling of roots, extra rations have been refused to men who are hoeing kale in the same field; and whether, in view of the fact that the jobs are identical, he will take immediate steps to put an end to this anomaly.

Dr. Summerskill: The farming operations for which seasonal allowances are given were selected after consultation with the Advisory Committee of the Trades Union Congress, and we do not propose to add to the list.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the right hon. Lady if she is not aware that this is further evidence of want of co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture? Is she further aware that the situation was described to me by a farmer who said, "Don't worry, Waldron, this is the last bit of Socialist folly of Comrade John and our Edith."

Mr. R. A. Butler: The right hon. Lady says she will not reconsider the matter. Will not she put the question again to the unions because it is clear to all of us who live in the country districts there is an anomaly here which ought to be seen into?

Dr. Summerskill: I recognise that there is an anomaly here and I do not deny it.

Sir W. Smithers: Then why not do something?

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that we have to draw the line somewhere, and I think he would agree that the Advisory Committee of the Trade Union Congress does take everything into consideration.

Mr. Butler: Does the right hon. Lady realise that there are a great number of people living in the country who also


take these things into consideration and have views which ought to be considered, too?

Sir W. Smithers: Is not this further proof that the T.U.C. are masters of this country?

Imitation Honey

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food what are the ingredients of imitation honey; and what is its value as food in comparison with that of real honey.

Dr. Summerskill: The principal ingredient of imitation honey is invert sugar—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—invert sugar. It sometimes contains other forms of sugar and may be flavoured, for example, with natural honey. There is no appreciable difference between the food values of imitation honey and natural honey.

Sir T. Moore: How does one recognise the inversion of this imitation honey?

Dr. Summerskill: Invert sugar is the result of breaking up the sucrose with acid. It is a mixture of glucose and fructose.

Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Lady say whether there is any difference in taste between real honey and imitation honey?

Dr. Summerskill: Very little.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Was not the recipe of this honey fully described in "Let us Face the Future"?

Confectionery Exports

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now define his policy in relation to the export of confectionery to countries with which Britain has a favourable balance of trade with special reference to the urgent and increasing home demand.

Dr. Summerskill: Exports of chocolate and sugar confectionery in 1949 to countries with which we have a favourable balance of trade will not exceed the limited amounts exported to them in 1948. Our object is to retain our connection with these markets, principally in Commonwealth countries and Colonial possessions.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not the Minister fully realise the urgent need to give an

additional allocation at home? It is no use derationing without giving a proper allocation. Why not ensure that there is a proper allocation? It would work if only the right hon. Lady gave an adequate quantity.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member should have thought of that before he pressed for derationing.

Mr. De la Bère: I will press the right hon. Lady now, and keep on pressing.

Fish (Foreign Landings)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to deal with a recurrence of the recent loss sustained by British fishermen when large catches were unsaleable for edible purposes owing to large scale foreign landings.

Dr. Summerskill: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the loss incurred during the week ended 21st May, when 825 tons of edible white fish were sent to the meal works at the four largest ports, out of 19,500 tons landed. In the light of these figures I cannot accept the implication that foreign landings are causing large losses.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not also a fact that much of the fish landed fetches a very poor price; and what is the sense in sending out ships and using coal, men and ships to bring back nothing of value and at the same time paying foreign currency for landings elsewhere?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member must realise that the general demand for fish is very good, but we cannot equate supply to demand every day.

Sir David Robertson: Would not this problem disappear if the Ministry of Food refused to accept fish collected all round the coast of Iceland and brought here in cargo vessels? Why does not the Ministry insist on the same procedure with our fish as with fish bought for Germany, that is, that it goes on the actual catching trawler direct from the grounds to the port of Hamburg?

Dr. Summerskill: As the hon. Gentleman knows, if there is congestion at certain ports we are allowed to suspend landings.

E.V.W. Camps (Meat Ration)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food how many British subjects are living in European voluntary workers camps in England and Wales, and are in receipt of the full meat ration; and how many of them are doing work that entitles European voluntary workers to this ration.

Dr. Summerskill: Ninety-two thousand, two hundred workers, of whom 51,700 are foreign, are living in industrial or agricultural camps and hostels and get the allowances of food on either the industrial "A" or "B" scales.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Lady say what steps are taken to ensure that unauthorised persons do not get an extra meat ration, because there is great resentment at this in rural areas?

Dr. Summerskill: The only answer I can give is that we have very responsible men in charge who are there for the purpose of preventing it from happening.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is there any check periodically?

Dr. Summerskill: The men are there to check it.

Carrot Control

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he is now in position to make a statement on the termination of the carrot control.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir, I am not in a position to make a statement on the final termination of carrot control, but so far as the 1949 crop is concerned my right hon. Friend does not propose to control the price until the 1st November, and will not re-introduce licensing of traders.

Sir T. Moore: Would the right hon. Lady consider retaining enough carrots to dangle in front of the electorate at the next Election?

Imported Fruit (Allocations)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food what proposals he has for providing wholesalers who started business since 1939 with allocations of fruits imported and controlled by his Department.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry that I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply on this subject given by my right hon. Friend on 2nd March.

Mr. Collins: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the difficulty is technical, since this change is so desirable; and could not she decide on one of the two most favoured schemes put forward, so that this very desirable objective can be achieved?

Dr. Summerskill: There are wider issues. We are considering the de-control of citrus fruit.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB REFUGEES (RELIEF FUND)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contributions have been made up to date by Member States of the United Nations and by Israel for the relief of the 900,000 Arabs forced out of Palestine.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT an extract from a United Nations report showing the estimated value of donations by Governments to the Mediator's first relief project and to the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees, which was later established, up to the date of 5th March. The United Kingdom contribution to the Mediator's scheme represented almost a quarter of the total governmental contributions up to that date, while the United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees was more than one half of the total contributions at that date. Since then the United States Congress has authorised the provision of 16 million dollars for this work, half of which has become available. Israel has not subscribed.

Mr. Lipson: Could the Minister say to what extent funds now available are adequate for the purpose intended for relieving distress?

Mr. McNeil: The fund's average disbursements on the existing scale will carry the work of relief on until approximately November of this year.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I ask whether it is the case that this matter is under discussion between the nations concerned before the United Nations Conciliation Committee? May I further ask whether we may take it that in his answer the Minister was not intending to accept the statement either that they were forced out of Palestine or that the numbers amounted to 900,000?

Mr. McNeil: I did not see any point in commenting on the circumstances in which the refugees had come out. I should like to say to my hon. Friend that, although there is some minor doubt about the exact figure, I have recently most carefully checked the figure and it is as near 900,000 as makes no difference.

Brigadier Rayner: Can the Minister of State say whether the Israel authorities have yet paid any compensation on account of the orangeries and vineyards that have been seized?

ESTIMATED VALUE OF DONATIONS PLEDGED TO MEDIATOR AND DELIVERY STATUS OF DONATIONS


(5th March, 1949: In U.S. Dollars)


(10 per cent. allowance for freight unless otherwise indicated)


Source
Total Pledged to Mediator
Believed Delivered Before 1st January, 1949
Delivered After 1st January, 1949
En Route
Total Delivered or En Route
Balance to be Forwarded


GRAND TOTAL
…
3,644,918
2,863,174
303,600
57,449
3,224,223
420,695


GOVERNMENTS
…
1,714,026
1,132,282
303,600
57,449
1,493,331
220,695


Australia
…
203,500
203,500
—
—
203,500
—


Belgium
…
12,368
12,368
—
—
12,368
—


Burma
…
8,250
8,250
—
—
8,250
—


Canada
…
303,600
—
303,600
—
303,600
—


Ceylon
…
13,200
13,200
—
—
13,200
—


Ethiopia
…
35,200
35,200
—
—
35,200
—


France
…
62,893
62,893
—
—
62,893
—


India
…
30,230
30,230
—
—
30,230
—


Indonesia
…
213,400
21,3401
—
—
21,340
192,060


Ireland
…
7,920
7,920
—
—
7,920
—


Italy
…
17,600
17,600
—
—
17,600
—


Luxembourg
…
1,200
1,2001
—
—
1,200
—


Netherlands
…
18,370
18,370
—
—
18,370
—


New Zealand
…
70,070
70,070
—
—
70,070
—


Norway
…
50,403
50,4031
—
—
50,403
—


Switzerland
…
55,000
55,000
—
—
55,000
—


Turkey
…
26,400
—
—
26,400
26,400
—


Union of South Africa
…
78,811
47,762
—
31,049
78,811
—


United Kingdom
…
403,226
389,516
—
—
389,516
13,710


Venezuela
…
14,925
—
—
—
—
14,925


Yemen
…
87,460
87,460
—
—
87,460
—

Mr. McNeil: No, but I want to say quite fairly that that does not arise out of this Question.

Mr. Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend answer that part of my supplementary which asked whether all these matters, including the one just put, are now in negotiation between the Arab countries and Israel?

Mr. McNeil: Naturally, Sir, I am most anxious to avoid commenting at all upon the negotiations which are at present going on between these Governments under the auspices of the United Nations Commission.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a fact that the most effective form of relief would be a rehabilitation of these people in their own homes, and what steps are being taken by the Government to speed this on?

Following is the extract:

ESTIMATED VALUE OF CASH AND COMMODITY DONATIONS TO U.N.R.P.R.


(5th March, 1949: In U.S. Dollars)


Source
Donations
Received
En Route
Balance to be Forwarded


Total
Cash
Commodity


GRAND TOTAL
…
…
6,517,465
4,185,854
2,331,611
2,601,393
192,968
3,723,104


GOVERNMENTS
…
…
6,083,238
4,081,346
2,001,872
2,268,572
192,078
3,622,298


Australia
…
…
132,000
—
132,000
—
—
132,000


Bahrein
…
…
30,230
30,230
—
—
—
30,230


Belgium
…
…
432,000
—
432,000
—
—
432,000


Canada
…
…
739,200
—
739,2001
—
79,200
660,000


Denmark
…
…
130,000
—
130,000
—
—
130,000


Egypt
…
…
165,083
165,083
—
165,083
—
—


France
…
…
157,2332
157,233
—
47,170
—
110,063


India
…
…
69,770
69,770
—
—
—
69,770


New Zealand
…
…
95,362
—
95,3621
—
—
95,362


Norway
…
…
60,484
—
60,484
—
—
60,484


Pakistan
…
…
30,230
30,230
—
—
—
30,230


Saudi Arabia
…
…
66,000
—
66,0001
66,000
—
—


Sweden
…
…
270,052
—
270,052
—
59,600
210,452


Switzerland
…
…
23,226
—
23,226
—
—
23,226


Turkey
…
…
53,548
—
53,548
—
53,548
—


United Kingdom
…
…
3,628,800
3,628,800
—
1,990,319
—
1,638,481

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (REPARATIONS)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement on His Majesty's Government's attitude to the payment of reparations by Japan; and to what extent he has consulted the other members of the British Commonwealth on this subject.

Mr. McNeil: The recent United States proposals on Japanese reparations are still being studied and we are seeking clarification of a number of obscure points. We are naturally in touch with interested Commonwealth Governments on this subject.

Mr. Teeling: Can the Minister of State give any idea when he will be able to make a definite statement on the matter; and does he not think that it would have been much wiser if, before the Americans published this statement, some arrangement or agreement had been made between the British and American Governments?

Mr. McNeil: The Government of the United States, as the hon. Gentleman knows, quite clearly had power to issue interim directives in certain circumstances, and they exerted this power. As to the

first part of the question, I should hope that quite soon we shall be able to make a full statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (BRITISH VISITORS)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the hardship caused to persons of small means desirous of visiting relatives in Austria by the present financial condition imposed before a tourist card is issued; and whether he will take steps to have this condition waived where private hospitality is offered by relatives.

Mr. McNeil: The condition that a tourist card involving payment of 8s. 4d. for each day of stay in Austria must be obtained by visitors to Austria who have not booked accommodation at a tourist hotel was made by the Austrian Government. Seven shillings and sixpence of the 8s. 4d. is recoverable in Austrian currency. Military permit officers are authorised at their discretion to issue permits in compassionate cases of urgency without the production of these cards. It is also understood that the Austrian Legation in London will give special consideration to exceptional cases of hardship.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHANGHAI (BRITISH ASSETS)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received as to the forcible acquisition or destruction of British assets in Shanghai; and what action he has taken to safeguard them.

Mr. McNeil: I am glad to say that reports so far received, whch are of course necessarily preliminary, do not indicate that any British assets have been forcibly acquired or seriously damaged by either side. As regards the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Consul-General has been in contact with both sides with a view to safeguarding British lives and property.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Minister of State aware that the Consul-General is reported as having said that certain of our ships were seized at Shanghai, and can he say whether that, in view of his answer, was an incorrect report?

Mr. McNeil: I have seen a Press statement, but on the official information available to us as late as last night, my statement covers the situation.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that forcible possession was taken of British property by the Kuomintang forces and that the British people resident there welcomed the liberating forces who cleared up the Kuomintang forces? Is not that the case?

Mr. McNeil: I saw a report to which no doubt the hon. Gentleman is referring. I find it in conflict with the official information available to us from the Consul-General.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman express the thanks of all concerned to the British Consul-General for the way in which he has carried out his duties in Shanghai?

Mr. McNeil: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA (NATIONALISATION LAWS)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs since the nationalisation laws passed by the Czechoslovak Government conflict

with their obligations under the Anglo-Czechoslovakian Agreement dated 1st November, 1945, Command Paper No. 6695, what representations have been made to the Czechoslovakian Government on this matter.

Mr. McNeil: The Agreement, to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, applies to money and property which were subjected to special measures in consequence of the enemy occupation of Czechoslovakia. It cannot clearly be held to debar the application of general nationalisation measures, as such, to the property of British subjects. The hon. and gallant Member will, however, be aware that negotiations have already been begun regarding the payment of effective compensation to British subjects for nationalised property and they are to be resumed shortly in connection with the forthcoming commercial discussions.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can it be taken from that answer that His Majesty's Government will not allow Section 5, which allows firms to repudiate any debts or obligations which might harm them, to stand in the way of securing fair and adequate compensation for all British assets in Czechoslovakia?

Mr. McNeil: We have already drawn attention to the impropriety of repudiating certain claims against property and we shall not yield upon that point.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister consider putting me on the body responsible for deciding what is fair and adequate compensation?

Mr. McNeil: I can imagine some other subjects and some other bodies to which I should be glad to address the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUMANIA (BRITISH ASSETS)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make as to the action taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure proper compensation for British assets taken over by the Roumanian Government.

Mr. McNeil: On 7th September, 1948, and again on 18th March last. His


Majesty's Government informed the Roumanian Government that they could not recognise the validity of Roumanian legislation regarding nationalisation since it amounted to confiscation. Lacking any indication that their representations on this matter would be considered, His Majesty's Government informed the Roumanian Government in their second communication that they reserved all rights on behalf of British nationals with respect to the seizure of their properties and held the Roumanian Government responsible for the return of the properties or for prompt payment of adequate and effective compensation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: While His Majesty's Government may have retained their position, particularly in view of such big assets as Astra-Romano, can the Minister of State say what further action he means to take to ensure that something is done, rather than merely reserving his position?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken in Germany to stop firms engaged in shipbuilding and engineering from underselling their British counterparts in the world's markets.

Mr. McNeil: As it has been made plain on a number of previous occasions, His Majesty's Government as an occupying Power have no cause for complaint if German exporters are able to compete with British and other exporters on an equal footing, provided that no unfair practices are indulged in. As regards shipbuilding and engineering, my information is that no cases of reported unfair trade practices have been substantiated. The indications are that costs of production in German shipyards are in general no lower than those of British shipyards.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: But is not my right hon. Friend aware that the number of workers in these industries who are enrolled in trade unions is comparatively small and, because that is so, they are open to exploitation as cheap labour, and that that is what is going on to quite a considerable extent?

Mr. McNeil: If my hon. Friend has any information I shall be most glad to have it investigated, but I must reiterate that the few cases which have been brought to our notice have not borne that interpretation when examined.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House to what extent the Germans are being permitted to indulge in shipbuilding?

Mr. McNeil: Under the occupation conditions the Germans are not permitted, except with permission, to build for ocean-going use. I understand, however, that for export purposes they are building some inland waterways craft at present.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: As the Control Commission staff is reduced, in conformity with general policy, will a nucleus be left behind sufficient to ensure that the Germans do not go in for secret or open subsidy in shipbuilding?

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps the noble Lord would give me notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA (AGREEMENT)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to the British representative on the Security Council of the United Nations as to the attitude he is to take up on the recent agreement made between the Dutch and the Republicans in Indonesia.

Mr. McNeil: As the House knows, the Netherlands and Republican Delegations to the recent discussions convened in Batavia by the United Nations Commission for Indonesia, reached agreement on 7th May on the re-establishment of the Republican Government in Djocjakarta. The Republican leaders agreed to press for the issue of a cease-fire order to Republican troops as soon as possible after the Republican Government had been reinstated at Djocjakarta, and for attendance of Republican representatives at a Round Table Conference at The Hague to discuss arrangements for the transfer of sovereignty to the United States of Indonesia. His Majesty's Government warmly welcome this agreement, which has been achieved in a fine spirit of good will and compromise on both sides, and


hope that it may lead to an early and final settlement of the Indonesian question. For the time being, therefore, there is no necessity to issue any further instructions to the United Kingdom representative on the Security Council.

Mr. Wyatt: Has my right hon. Friend received any indication when the Republican Government will be established in Djocjakarta?

Mr. McNeil: There is no restriction. It is only a matter of convenience, and both sides are handling the matter apparently to suit their own convenience.

Oral Answers to Questions — H.M.S. "AMETHYST"

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many of the crew of H.M.S. "Amethyst" are still missing.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): All officers and men serving in H.M.S. "Amethyst" at the time she was shelled on 20th April have now been accounted for. The House will also be interested to hear that two ratings who were in a China Mission Hospital which was subsequently taken over by the Communists have now returned to their ship. They have been well treated and are fully recovered from their wounds.

Major Beamish: Will the Minister renew his assurance to keep the House fully informed if any new situation arises in connection with the position of the "Amethyst" or regarding the safety of the officers and men who remain on board?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir; most certainly.

Mr. Gallacher: They are in good hands.

Major Beamish: When will the Minister be in a position to circulate much more detailed information concerning the deaths of the people on the "Amethyst" to the next-of-kin and relatives, who are anxious to know what happened?

Mr. Dugdale: As soon as possible, but I cannot say when that will be. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a Question down, I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. Austin: May I ask my hon. Friend what is the position regarding the future of the "Amethyst," the condition of the remainder of the crew on board, and whether safe-conduct negotiations have been entered into with the Communist authorities with a view to returning the remainder of the crew to Hong Kong or some other British station?

Mr. Dugdale: The crew are perfectly all right. I would prefer to answer other Questions at a later date. I think it would make it easier for the men concerned if I postponed answering further questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Pig Rations

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the urgency of supplementing the present meat ration with pork he will forthwith increase the present farrowing sow allowance from 8 to 12 cwt. in order that the breeder of pigs may have sufficient food to feed on the young pigs to an age of 16 weeks.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): No, Sir. The needs of breeders of pigs were fully considered before the Government decided upon the increases in pig rations that my right hon. Friend announced on 19th May.

Mr. De la Bère: How does the Minister expect to increase the pig population if he does not do something more than has already been done? Surely, it is important to secure an increase in the pig population if there is a shortage of food? I do not understand it.

Mr. Brown: The answer to the second supplementary question is that, of course, it is an important matter. The answer to the first part is that I expect it to be done by the farmers themselves becoming more self-sufficient and growing more home grown foodstuffs to supplement what we give them now.

Mr. De la Bère: Surely, the hon. Gentleman realises that it is impossible to expect farmers to increase their production of home-grown feedingstuffs when they are trying to increase the production of good, wholesome food for this country?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is mixing up two unrelated things. It is quite shocking for him to say that his local farmers cannot grow more foodstuffs and become more self-sufficient.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the harvest is several months away yet?

Oral Answers to Questions — CALCIUM CARBIDE (PRICE)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the price of calcium carbide produced by a Government-owned plant in South Wales and imported by the Government has been increased by £2 15s. per 1,000 kilos.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): The price of carbide was increased on 1st April last to bring it into line with current costs of production.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is not this the second increase in the price of Government-produced and Government-imported carbide? Has there not been an increase in the price of that carbide of £4 10s. per 1,000 kilos? Has there not, since June, 1948, been no increase in the cost of carbide produced by private enterprise. Does not this increase in Government-produced and Government-imported carbide lead to increases in the cost of manufacture, and is it not another instance of Government enterprise leading to increased costs to the consumers?

Mr. Edwards: No, Sir.

Mr. Erroll: Is it not the case that factories producing carbide under private enterprise have not had to increase their costs?

Mr. Edwards: I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter again to see if the Government have put up the price as against privately owned factories? There must be some reason for it, and may we have that reason? If the Minister does not know it, will he find out?

Mr. Edwards: It is commonly appreciated, in cases of this kind, that it is the business of the Government to cover

their costs of production, and that is the answer to the question.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Why has the cost of production in Government factories gone up like this, when factories under private enterprise can produce at a lower cost? What is the answer?

Mr. Bramall: If privately owned factories are in fact producing cheaper than the Government, are not buyers at liberty to buy at the cheaper cost, and would not that solve it?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PETROL DUTY)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what excise duty is paid by Government departments on purchases of petrol for their own use.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Ninepence a gallon. I assume the hon. Member refers to Customs duty.

Mr. Erroll: In all Departments?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALLPOX OUTBREAK, LISKEARD

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Health if he can now make any reassuring statement about the recent occurrence of smallpox at Liskeard.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): Yes, Sir. I am glad to assure the hon. Member that, as I am advised, there is now no reason to fear any further risk of infection in the locality from this occurrence: and to inform the House that it is now thought most unlikely that the recent incursion of ship-borne smallpox will give rise to any more cases.

Mr. Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this statement will be very welcome news to a great number of people, and may I ask him if he would see to it that proper publicity is given in the national papers that Liskeard is now "All clear"?

Mr. Blenkinsop: We certainly hope that full publicity will be given to this Question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERHARDT EISLER (COURT DECISION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now make a further statement on the case of Gerhardt Eisler.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): At Bow Street Court on 27th May the Chief Magistrate found that the requisitioning power had failed to show that Gerhardt Eisler had been convicted in the United States of America of an extraditable offence and discharged him.
On the same day, Mr. Eisler applied at the Home Office for a form of application for a document of identity to enable him to obtain a visa for his journey to Poland. His application form was lodged today and he has been given the document and informed that he may remain in this country for the time necessary to enable him to make arrangements for his journey.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision in this case may well serve as an object-lesson to countries in both halves of the world which do not share our views on the rule of law, and can he say whether the matter is now definitely closed at the American end, or whether he has received any further representations? Can he also say what is the position about compensation?

Mr. Ede: I am not responsible for the conduct of American affairs. I have had no communication from the American Embassy or any other American source since the decision of the Chief Magistrate. There is no justifiable claim for compensation against this country.

Mr. Chamberlain: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that, if Mr. Eisler goes to Germany, there will be no possibility of his being apprehended again by the American authorities?

Mr. Ede: I can give no guarantee that extends beyond the three-mile limit.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that any charge, imputation or insinuation whatever lies against the United States in this matter?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I heard the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, and it did not seem to me to call for any comment.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the circumstances that have been disclosed in this incident, he will review the regulations under which extradition orders can be granted and carried out in this country?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. This matter proceeded according to law and that would require an amendment of the law. May I say that I think that it is better that these matters should be dealt with by a decision of the court than by the ukase of the Minister.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind the suggestion made by the learned magistrate that those responsible should consider whether Mr. Eisler was entitled to any compensation for the inconvenience he suffered, and say what steps he proposes to take in regard to that?

Mr. Ede: I hope that those responsible will consider the learned magistrate's remarks.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that this man was forcibly dragged off a Polish ship, kept in prison for three weeks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would like some hon. Members kept in prison for three weeks to see how they would feel—and that it was then discovered that there was no charge which could be laid against him? Is there not something wrong with the law there?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. A certain statement was made on the information laid before the Southampton magistrate and from that time the law took its course.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not, nevertheless, now perfectly clear that on the facts, nobody properly advised could ever have come to the conclusion that this application for extradition had any basis whatever or had any possible chance of success; and is it not a little unfortunate that, in circumstances of that kind, a man should be taken off a foreign ship and detained in one of our gaols for three weeks?

Mr. Ede: The information was laid before the magistrate and the responsibility for the statement in that information lay with the person who made it.

Major Beamish: Will the Home Secretary make it perfectly clear that the release of this man was a simple question of British law and justice, and not in any way connected with the emotional outpourings of the extreme Left in this country?

Mr. Ede: I am bound to say that I think that supplementary questions like that are not very helpful. I have made it clear that this matter has proceeded by due course of law and that no other influence has been brought to bear upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY STRIKE, NORTH EASTERN REGION

Mr. McCorquodale: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the strike on the British Railways in the North-Eastern Region.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I regret to say that long-distance traffic was again seriously dislocated as a result of this strike yesterday, despite the fact that the strike is condemned by the two unions concerned. I understand that the Railway Executive are proposing to discuss the matter again with the trade unions.
I make no comment upon the merits or demerits of the point in dispute, but I must comment on the method adopted to deal with it. In their highly responsible and normal daily service a danger signal is an indication that there is trouble ahead, and railway men wisely proceed with caution and stop if the signal remains at danger. The present method of attempting to solve a difference is a danger signal. The dangers ahead are: inconvenience to the public, damage to industrial collective bargaining, repudiation of trade union responsibility, and disservice to the nation at a time when co-operation from all engaged in industry and distribution is vital to national economic recovery.
I urge those who have been led into this irresponsible action to abandon this method, to let reason and argument take

the place of coercion and force, and to follow the advice of their chosen representatives and thus restore the confidence the public have in railway workers, and avoid lasting damage to trade union responsibility.

Mr. McCorquodale: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him if he would ask those concerned to bear in mind their duty to the public, especially in view of the approaching Whitsun holiday?

Mr. Isaacs: I hope that the words I have used do convey the responsibility which the railway workers have to the public, and I trust that those words—which I think will have the support of the House—will carry some weight with them.

Mr. Chetwynd: As one who was inconvenienced last night in travelling from my constituency to London in order to be here today, may I ask my right hon. Friend to strengthen that appeal and do everything he can to ensure that negotiations take place speedily so that everyone can get away at Whitsun for a well-deserved holiday, even if it means that the railway men go back to their strike afterwards?

Mr. Isaacs: I hope that the railway workers will take some notice of the advice of their own officials, but I think it only fair to say that at least one-third of the men engaged in this work obeyed the advice of their leaders and remained at work, although about two-thirds disobeyed that advice.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House and the country something about the state of the negotiations and what the position is in regard to the problem under dispute, namely, the sleeping quarters of the men concerned, and other issues?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think I could usefully add anything on the point to the statement issued by the Railway Executive, which was published on Saturday—a little belated, I think, but they did publish it—and which was given good prominence in the Press. I do not think I could add more to that.

Mr. Butler: Has any further progress been made in this matter since the statement was published, and has not the


Minister's own Department got into touch with the parties concerned and received any later information on the matter?

Mr. Isaacs: There is no information later than the statement published by the Railway Executive. We are keeping in touch, but we cannot step in and negotiate on behalf of unofficial strikers. We must act through the unions, who are doing their best to restore normality.

Mr. Tolley: Will not my right hon. Friend take some action in this matter with a view to bringing the parties together and thus avoiding what will otherwise be a very unfortunate position? Why wait until a national disaster takes place before the Minister takes a hand?

Mr. Isaacs: The parties are meeting together; they met last week, and they are meeting, again. If my hon. Friend means that the Ministry of Labour should disregard the unions and call in the people engaged in an unofficial strike, we could not think of doing that.

Mr. Kendall: Would the right hon. Gentleman give some advice to the British Railways Executive to the effect that unless some agreement is reached on the question of lodging-out before next weekend the strike is apt to spread considerably? This condition of lodging-out has only just been re-imposed, and it seems rather too bad that we cannot get an agreement much faster than this.

Mr. Isaacs: But agreement was reached. The agreement was negotiated between the unions and the Railway Executive and the grievance which the men have—if they have any at all—is against their own unions for making an agreement which they do not support. That is their grievance, and it would be unwise for me to suggest that the Railway Executive have been at fault. I cannot put the blame on one side or the other without knowing the facts.

Mr. James Glanville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dispute is due not to the conditions of the lodging-out, but to the principle of lodging-out itself? The men want to be home every night; that is the grievance.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that in 1915 the late Lloyd George, when he was coming to Glasgow, said that in no circumstances would he meet the unofficial committee, but that when he came he did meet them, and that the meeting did quite a lot of good? Would not the Minister think over that?

Mr. Isaacs: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a follower of the late Lloyd George, but, so far as this present movement is concerned, we cannot meet unofficial strikers, because there is a deliberate, concerted, organised movement in the trade unions to disregard their leaders.

Mr. Collick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the unions involved in this matter is meeting today to consider the question; is he also aware that the point put by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) is quite erroneous and would he leave the matter for the moment to the parties concerned to meet together and settle it in their own way?

Mr. Isaacs: I think that what I have said has indicated that that is our earnest hope. The enginemen and firemen are meeting this week, and we are also in touch with the other unions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the amendments in Clause 20, page 15, line 45, and Clause 41, page 33, line 2, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Bevan."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Amendment made: At end, add:
and in respect of the new Clause (Insurance Funds) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. John McKay."—[Mr. John McKay.]

Question, as amended, put and agreed to

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 20.—(AMOUNTS AND PAYMENT OF IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.)

3.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, in page 15, line 45, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, in the case of an improvement grant to be made in pursuance of an application which could not have been entertained by the local authority but for the proviso to subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, the amount thereof may be such fraction of the approved expense of executing works, in excess of one-half thereof, as may, with the consent of the Minister, be determined as aforesaid.
The Bill already provides in Clause 20 (4) for improvement works with a local authority grant to exceed in certain cases the maximum figure of £600, which is the normal maximum figure in the Bill, provided that the approval of the Minister is given. This provision was included to meet the case of houses of special architectural and historic interest where it was regarded as of special importance that they should be brought up to a proper standard of maintenance and repair, and indeed a proper standard of condition.
Under this proposed proviso provision is made so that the local authority may be able to make a larger grant than 50 per cent. towards the special expenditure for this purpose. It is felt that in many cases it is highly desirable indeed that this work should be carried out in

the interests of the nation as a whole, and it is felt only reasonable that the local authority ought in this case to make a grant somewhat in excess of the 50 per cent. which is the normal provision in the Bill.
To give an example of the way in which this would work out a proposal coming before a local authority might cost a total sum of £900. The first £600 of that £900 would be treated under the normal process of the Bill; that is to say, the owner would be expected to make his contribution of £300 and the local authority would make a grant in respect of the remaining £300. In relation to the excess £300, in addition to the total of £600, the local authority would be enabled under this provision to make a grant larger to than 50 per cent. Indeed, they would be enabled, subject to the approval of the Minister, to make a grant up to the total excess £300 which in the case I have instanced would arise. We believe this is a reasonable provision and will help us to ensure that this category of houses of special interest to the nation will be maintained.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We consider that this is a reasonable proposal. For that reason we did not object to the recommital of the Bill. I think it is not unreasonable that the local community also should make some contribution towards the expense, since it derives a considerable advantage from the preservation of historic buildings within its own area.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the decision of the local authority is absolutely final in a case of this sort? Suppose that an owner thinks that a cottage is of architectural and historic merit. If he applies for a reconditioning grant under this provision, but the local authority take a different view, is there any appeal from the local authority's decision, or is their decision completely final?

Mr. Blenkinsop: No, we must leave it to the local authority to make the decision in the first place. After they have made their decision and have decided to make a grant, it is for the Minister to confirm it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That leaves a heavy responsibility on the shoulders of local authorities who are not always the


most enlightened in these matters. I trust that by circular or otherwise the Minister will indicate to the local authorities that such matters should, at any rate, be discussed with his Department since he is very closely concerned in the later financial arrangements. If he indicated that he is likely to look with a genial eye upon such applications, it would encourage the preservation of such property, which I am sure the whole Committee desires.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): As the Committee will know, I have put in the Bill for the first time in the history of housing legislation, these special provisions to try to rescue houses of historic merit from passing out of existence. I should be most unhappy if a local authority was not sufficiently enthusiastic to carry out the provisions of the Bill, and of course we should try to ensure administratively that if the local authority was inclined to be negligent its attention would be called to its duties in the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I only mean that since the recent pronouncement of the President of the Royal Academy, it is clear that conceptions as to beauty and the desirability of preserving certain works may differ greatly among many different people. It may be that what appeals to one generation may not appeal so strongly to another. This is a matter upon which we shall all have to keep a vigilant eye.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1 OF THE SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT, 1899.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 33, line 2, at the end, to insert:
(2) Paragraph (e) of section twenty-two of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923 (which provides that where an advance is made under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, in respect of a house in course of construction, the advance may be made by instalments as the building of the house progresses, so that the total advance does not at any time before the completion of the house exceed fifty per cent. of the value of the work done up to that time), shall have effect with the substitution, for the reference to fifty per cent., of a reference to eighty per cent.
Under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, local authorities are empowered to

make instalment payments of loans which they have agreed while a house is actually being built, so long as the value of those advances shall not at any time exceed 50 per cent. of the value of the work done. My right hon. Friend agreed - in Committee that we should increase this proportion to 80 per cent., and we have now taken the opportunity to do so.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We think it reasonable that this limit should be raised, although it seems to us that at present under Clause 4 there is an unlimited discretion left to the local authority. The Minister is not actually raising the proportion to 80 per cent.; he is lowering it from 100 per cent. However, it leaves the resulting advance at a higher figure than it was previously, and for that reason we approve of it.

Mr. Dumpleton: I thank the Minister for putting down this Amendment in accordance with the promise he gave in Standing Committee. He will remember that we discussed this matter also in connection with an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall), which the Minister promised to consider, and I am sorry that he has not been able to cover both Amendments. Could he say something about this?

Mr. Kendall: I am rather sorry that the Minister has not been able to implement his promise. Perhaps he could tell me the reason why. I think we shall find that many local authorities who have already loaned money to joint owners will find themselves in a great deal of difficulty from the legal aspect unless the situation is legalised.

Mr. Blenkinsop: My right hon. Friend considered this matter concerning joint owners very carefully, as indeed he promised to do in Committee. We found that in practice it would mean such a comprehensive amendment of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act that we could not contemplate it in this Measure. Of course, for the generality of cases there is an opportunity of securing loans under the Housing Act itself—the 1936 Housing Act—so that no hardship to the general cases would arise. Nor do I anticipate that any hardship will arise in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall).

Mr. Kendall: Does that mean that under the Housing Act local authorities can loan money in joint names in any case? Can they do that already?

Mr. Bevan: Yes.

Mr. Kendall: Will that automatically take care of the money already loaned by the local authorities in joint names?

Mr. Bevan: It will not take care of the cases where money has been borrowed under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, but, as has been pointed out, I went into this very fully indeed and I came to the conclusion that the alterations in the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act would have to be most comprehensive if we sought to carry out this relief. The point is that it is better for the local authority to lend money under the 1936 Act where the troubles will not arise.

Mr. Kendall: Can it be made known very extensively to local authorities that under the 1936 Act they are able to loan money in the names of husband and wife, or brother and sister, as the case may be, on application?

Mr. Bevan: I imagine that local authorities will take notice of what we are doing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(INSURANCE FUNDS.)

(1) A local authority for the purposes of Part V of the principal Act or a county council may (if they think fit) establish a fund to be called "the housing insurance fund" with a view to providing a sum of money which shall be available for making good all such losses damages costs and expenses in relation to houses provided by such authority or council or in respect of which such authority or council has advanced money as may from time to time be specified in a resolution of the council of such local authority or the county council (in this section referred to as "the specified risks").

(2) The establishment of a housing insurance fund under this section shall not prevent the local authority or county council from insuring in one or more insurance offices against the whole or any part of all or any of the specified risks.

(3) In each year after the establishment of the housing insurance fund the local authority or county council shall pay into that fund either—

(a) such a sum as shall in their opinion be not less than the aggregate amount of

the premiums which would be payable if the local authority or county council fully insured in some insurance office of good repute against the specified risks; or
(b) if the local authority or county council insure in some insurance office against the whole or any part of all or any of the specified risks such sum as will together with the premiums paid for the last-mentioned insurance be not less than the aggregate amount aforesaid.

(4) When the housing insurance fund shall amount to the prescribed amount (as hereinafter defined) the local authority or county council may if they think fit discontinue the yearly payments to the fund but if the fund is at any time reduced below the prescribed amount the local authority or county council shall recommence and continue the yearly payments to that fund in accordance with subsection (3) of this section until the fund be restored to the prescribed amount.

(5) The local authority or county council shall provide the yearly payments aforesaid by contributions from the general rate fund or county fund as the case may be.

(6) (a) Except so far as the housing insurance fund and the proceeds of sale of securities in which that fund is invested may be necessary to meet losses damages costs and expenses in consequence of the specified risks all moneys for the time being standing to the credit of the fund shall (unless applied in any other manner authorised by any enactment) be invested in statutory securities and the interest and other annual proceeds received by the local authority or county council in respect of such investments shall be carried to the general rate fund or county fund as the case may be;

(b) In addition to the sum required to be paid into the housing insurance fund by subsection (3) of this section the local authority or county council shall in every year so long as the fund is less than the prescribed amount carry to the credit of that fund out of the general rate fund or county fund as the case may be an amount equal to the interest and other annual proceeds carried to the general rate fund or county fund as the case may be in pursuance of the last preceding paragraph;

(c) If and so long as the housing insurance fund amounts to the prescribed amount the interest and other annual proceeds received by the local authority or county council in respect of or on investments forming part of the insurance fund and carried to the general rate fund or county fund as the case may be appropriated in the accounts of the local authority or county council to the housing department of the local authority or county council.

(7) (a) The housing insurance fund shall be applied to meet any losses damages costs or expenses sustained by the local authority or county council in consequence of the whole or any part of all or any of the specified risks in the order of the dates on which such losses damages costs or expenses become ascertained and if at any time and from time to time the insurance fund shall be insufficient to make


good any such losses damages costs or expenses the local authority or county council may with the sanction of the Minister borrow at interest under and subject to the provisions of Part IX of the Local Government Act 1933 such sums of moneys as will be necessary to make up the deficiency;

(b) The amounts of the annual charges in respect of interest on and repayment of principal of any sums borrowed in pursuance of this subsection and the amounts of any such deficiencies as aforesaid not made up by borrowing shall be paid out of the general rate fund or county fund as the case may be.

(8) In this section the "prescribed amount" means such sum as may from time to time be prescribed by the local authority or county council.—[Mr. John McKay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not want to trespass too much upon the time of the Committee, but I believe that this Clause raises a question of some importance to the authorities. The Clause provides a good deal of elasticity. The whole question of the specified risks which the authorities undertake, would have to be decided and they would also decide the question of the total accumulated money which the fund should contain when at its full capacity. They will also decide what contribution and what premium will be needed every year.
In addition, local authorities or county councils would have the option of deciding what prescribed money was necessary to fulfil all the obligations they had in mind. If this Clause were passed the authorities would have three options: first, to contribute the full amount that they think necessary to cover their liabilities; secondly, to continue insuring outside their own funds altogether, if they so wished; and, thirdly, to have a mixed position of insuring part of their liabilities with their own fund and dealing with private companies for the remainder of their liabilities.
It will be seen that once local authorities are given the power they will have full control and full opportunity to decide in accordance with the needs of their own locality. Each locality, of course, has its varying situation. Some authorities might find it necessary to insure part of their property by means of this fund

while others might find that they preferred a mixed method. I cannot see, therefore, that there can be any criticism of the Clause provided we can agree on the principle. The Clause lays down that contributions shall come from the general rate fund or the county fund in order that the new fund may be built up. It also provides that when the money is accumulated it shall be invested in statutory securities and that the interest and other proceeds shall go to the general rate fund or the county fund and shall then be transferred to the housing fund.
The Clause goes on to deal with the position where, after a time, when the prescribed amount which the local authority considered sufficient to meet their own liabilities has been acquired, the authority may cease contributing. It indicates that in the case of an exceptional position where the authority find, through very unfortunate circumstances, that they cannot meet the liabilities which have fallen upon them, they have power to borrow money with the consent of the Minister. Provision is also made that any other deficiencies can be met by the general rate fund.
It is not my intention to go into any more details. From our experience at Wallsend we think that this Clause ought to be inserted into the Bill so as to give these authorities the power to deal with the situation in accordance with their local position. There may, of course, be something wrong with the drafting of the Clause, but the chief point which arises is this: is this a necessary step and is it a step which would be useful and helpful to the local authorities? The answer to that question will depend upon the experiences which various representatives have had in their localities.
I have not attempted to obtain any evidence to substantiate the point, but in Wallsend we find that over a ten-year period we have contributed to the insurance companies four times the amount that we have obtained in respect of liabilities which have arisen. I think that if we investigated the position over many of the local bodies doing this kind of thing—and, as far as I can gather, there are various methods of dealing with the point—we shall find that there is a tremendous gap between the contributions which have to be paid and what is received to meet the liabilities. Our


experience at Wallsend suggests that from a business point of view, it would be far better if the authorities had the power to set up a fund of this character in order to deal with their own liabilities.
If the Minister cannot agree at the moment to accept this Clause as it is drafted, we should be very pleased if he would indicate that he would consider the position later. We seek largely to ventilate the point more than to do anything else and to find out what is the Minister's view on this matter; and, also, if possible, to obtain some of the local experiences of other representatives. If we can have some discussion of the matter and some indication from the Minister that he realises that this is important and worthy of consideration, and an assurance that he will take the matter into consideration in the near future after getting some evidence about it, we shall really have attained the end that we seek.

Mr. Bevan: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for putting his case in such lucid and moderate terms. If I had thought there was very much substance in the complaint that was made, I should have considered the matter earlier, but I cannot think that the local authorities in this regard are indeed suffering any serious disabilities. There is no obligation upon the local authority to insure at all. I should have thought that a local authority that had a substantial number of houses, most of which were semidetached, could properly have carried the onus. A very large number of authorities, in fact, do.
I see no reason why a local authority over a period of years should continue to pay premiums to insurance companies in excess of any reasonable risk it itself has incurred. In the event of damage to one of its houses, it can of course, carry that on the repairs account and should make provision for it in the repairs account. If the house is a total loss, that is a risk the local authority runs. I should have thought myself that that was a risk a local authority could quite prudently run, and that therefore there was no need for the local authority to run a residual risk. To have a separate account for the loss of houses seems unreasonably complicated, because in the overwhelming number of cases the local authorities could meet the cost of rebuilding

houses out of their ordinary annual funds.
Therefore, my reply to my hon. Friend is that if I thought there was a substantial case I should certainly look at it sympathetically, but my own view is that the local authorities themselves can quite easily face the risk and ought not to be encouraged to evolve novel means of dealing with it. In any case, I am sorry to say that I could not accept the new Clause in its present form because it is not technically correct. I hope that with this explanation, my hon. Friend will not find it necessary to push the matter any farther.

Mr. McKay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, with-drawn.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(PROVISIONS AS TO FURTHER IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.)

(1) No assistance shall be given under section nineteen of this Act in respect of the provision of dwellings by means of the conversion of dwellings in relation to which the conditions specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act for the time being apply.

(2) Where by virtue of the giving on any occasion of assistance under section nineteen of this Act in respect of the improvement of a dwelling the conditions specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act fall to be required to be observed with respect to the dwelling before the observance thereof by virtue of the giving of assistance on a previous occasion has ceased to be requisite, the provisions of sections twenty-two and twenty-three of this Act and of subsection (4) of section twenty-four thereof shall apply in relation to the dwelling as regards each occasion on which assistance is so given as if it were the only occasion on which it were so given:

Provided that in relation to any period during which the said conditions are simultaneously required to be observed by virtue of the giving of assistance on more than one occasion, anything which would or would not constitute a breach of the condition as to rent in relation to the application of that condition by virtue of the giving of assistance on the last occasion shall be treated as constituting or, as the case may be, not constituting a breach of that condition in relation to the application thereof by virtue of the giving of assistance on any previous occasion.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause deals with the problem of second application for grant under the Bill, in a way rather similar to the way in which in Committee we added a new Clause where the initial grant had been made under the Rural Workers (Housing) Acts. Where a grant has already been made by the local authority under Clause 19 (3, a), the local authority has to satisfy itself that the dwelling is to be provided or improved up to a satisfactory standard of housing accommodation for not less than 30 years after the completion of the works. We therefore feel that, while it may be desirable for further improvement work to be done to connect up with a source of water supply that has just become available, or an electricity supply, or something of that sort, there is no proper reason why we should accept or consider a second grant for conversion purposes. Therefore, the first part of this new Clause lays it down that so far as conversion is concerned the local authority will not consider an application for a second grant.
The second part of the new Clause makes the necessary provision where a local authority is considering an application for a second grant in relation to improvements of the kind I have just referred to, and will enable the owner to charge an appropriate increase in rent in relation to that part of the expenses that he has himself incurred, which would be of course the same as in relation to his initial grant. We also provide in this Clause that there shall be proper marrying of the conditions which apply to the improvement grants, if made.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We think that it would be to the advantage of the legislation if this Clause were added. We are, of course, getting into almost theological complication in consideration of this matter. I am reminded of the old lady in my own country who, going into a small bank to inquire about her War Loan, was asked by the manager whether she was concerned with conversion or redemption, to which her answer was that she thought she had come into a bank and not into a kirk. The real danger is of making this legislation so complicated that those to whom we primarily desire its advantages to be directed, namely, the small owners, may find it very difficult

to understand; and all one can say is that, while we are in favour of this, we trust that it will be possible somehow or another, at some stage of our housing legislation, to codify these matters so that ordinary persons will be able both to run and read it. At present we do not think the Minister can alter the rather cumbrous forms into which these Clauses are now falling, and, therefore, we would not offer any opposition to the adding of this new Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER TO INCREASE RENT FIXED UNDER PART II IN CERTAIN CASES.)

If, in the case of a dwelling in respect of the provision or improvement of which assistance has been given under section nineteen of this Act, being a dwelling to which works (other than works for the purposes of the execution of which assistance has been so given) have been executed at a time when the conditions specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act are required to be observed with respect to the dwelling, an application in that behalf is made to the local authority, they may direct that the maximum amount of the rent payable by the occupier of the dwelling shall be increased by such amount as may be specified in the direction, not exceeding an amount calculated at a rate per annum of eight per cent. of the cost of executing the works; and where such a direction is given—

(a) references in paragraphs (b) and (c) of that subsection to the amount which the rent payable by the occupier of the dwelling is not to exceed shall, as respects any period after the giving of the direction and before the direction is superseded by a further direction under this section or by the application of the said conditions by virtue of the giving of further assistance under the said section nineteen, be construed in relation to the dwelling, for the purposes of this Part of this Act and, where subsection (2) of section twenty-six applies, for the purposes of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 to 1942, as references to that amount as increased under this section; and
(b) it shall be the duty of the proper officer of the local authority to record particulars of the direction in the register of the local land charges.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is to deal with the case where a dwelling has been improved or provided with the aid of an improvement grant made under this Bill, and the


conditions attached to such a grant are still operative and further works are carried out by the owner at his own expense. In such a case we think it is only right that the owner should be allowed to charge up to 8 per cent. on the cost that he has had to incur in addition to the rent, which otherwise would be restricted under the terms of the Bill. In this case the owner would have to make application to the local authority, which would, in turn, give a direction to the effect that the owner would be allowed to make such an increase up to a maximum of 8 per cent. on the additional cost of works he had undertaken.

4.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Again we make no objection to the inclusion of this Clause, although when one considers how many times we have impressed on the Minister the desirability in some cases, under some circumstances, of a modest increase in rent being made and how the Minister has in all cases resisted any suggestion of the kind, fiercely and, indeed, contentiously, we are surprised, to find that in this case, at any rate, he is willing to waive his principle in favour of an expediency. We are glad to see that is so.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot permit that one to pass. I am afraid that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not recalled the circumstances in which I agreed upstairs to do this. The case here is that a cottage which is a rent-controlled cottage and, therefore, one to which the landlord can at the moment make improvement and charge 8 per cent., will be subject to the improvement grant conditions. The work is carried out and 6 per cent. of the cost that falls to the landlord of the improvement is charged. The question then arises as to whether that cottage is to be in a different category from all other rent-controlled cottages, because in the case of all other rent-controlled cottages the owner would be able to make an improvement and charge 8 per cent. on the rent. I came to the conclusion that it would be foolish for this category of cottage to be permanently in the position of not being improved at all, except entirely at the expense of the owner, and, therefore, the cottage can be restored to the same class

that it occupied before the improvement grant was made upon it. So it is not in fact an agreement to allow an increase of rent in this case as distinct from all others; it is a restoration of the cottage to the normal category of cottages to which improvement can be made by the landlord and 8 per cent. Charged.

Mr. Alpass: Is this extra expenditure included in the total of the grant—both the contribution and what the owner himself has put up?

Mr. Bevan: No. I thought that I had made the position quite clear. The improvement grant has been made on a cottage. A year or so lapses, and the owner of the cottage wishes to make a further improvement. Unless this Clause were put in the Bill, he would have to meet the whole of the expense himself, whereas his neighbour could improve his cottage and charge the tenant 8 per cent. I want to put the two owners in the same position, and that is all that the Clause does.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER TO INCREASE RENT FIXED UNDER HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) ACTS IN CERTAIN CASES.)

If, in the case of a dwelling in respect of which assistance has been given under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, by way of grant, being a dwelling to which works (other than works in respect of which assistance has been given under that Act by way of grant, or under section nineteen of this Act) have been executed at a time when conditions contained in the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 to 1942, apply in relation to the dwelling, an application in that behalf is made to the local authority by whom the grant was made, they may direct that the maximum amount of the rent payable by the occupier in respect of the dwelling shall be increased by such amount as may be specified in the direction, not exceeding an amount calculated at a rate per annum of eight per cent. of the cost of executing the works; and where such a direction is given—

(a) the reference in that one of the following provisions which is applicable to the dwelling, namely, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, and section six of the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Act, 1938, to the amount which the rent payable by the occupier in respect of the dwelling is not to exceed shall, as respects any period after the giving of the direction and before the direction is superseded by a further direction under this section, be construed in


relation to the dwelling as a reference to that amount as increased under this section; and
(b) it shall be the duty of the proper officer of the local authority to record particulars of the direction in the register of local land charges.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is to deal with an exactly parallel case to the last but where the initial grant has been made under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts and where the owner undertakes further work. Here again, provisions are made to enable the owner, subject to the approval of the local authorities, to raise the rent up to 8 per cent. of his expenses.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Again we welcome this new Clause. Of course, the Minister's contention on the previous Clause that it would be most unjust that two categories of owners should not be placed in an identical position, was in fact one of the arguments we brought forward on more than one occasion with singularly little success. It is a good thing that "while the light holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may return." As long as this little candle of equality which the Minister owns may be kept alight, there is no saying to what distance it may throw its beams. Today the Minister has lighted a candle which may not readily be put out, and we welcome this new Clause very sincerely.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(REVIVAL OF POWER TO MAKE BYELAWS AS TO NUMBER OF PERSONS PERMITTED TO OCCUPY WORKING-CLASS HOUSES.)

Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section six of the principal Act (which included amongst the purposes for which byelaws with respect to working-class houses may be made under that subsection the fixing of the number of persons who may occupy such a house and the separation of the sexes therein, and which ceased to have effect as from the appointed day within the meaning of Part IV of that Act) shall again have effect, but the operation of byelaws made for the purposes specified in that paragraph shall be limited to houses let as lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The local authorities had powers under the 1925 Housing Act to make by-laws with regard to the number of persons living in houses let as lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family. This power was extended to separate dwellings by the 1935 Housing Act. The overcrowding provisions of the 1935 and 1936 Acts were regarded as superseding this particular by-law on the operative date when the overcrowding provisions of these Acts came into operation, and the by-law ceased to be effective. Certain local authorities have represented to us that they would find this by-law valuable at this time in view of the number of houses taken over and used as hostels with, in some cases, severe overcrowding. We therefore restore in this new Clause the power to make by-laws.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Whenever there is a dance to be executed in a white sheet, the Parliamentary Secretary comes forward gracefully and does it. I can compliment him on the grace and vigour with which the exercise has been conducted upon this occasion. It is, of course, an example of the difficulty in which the Government find themselves owing to the lack of housing accommodation. They are not able to maintain the beneficial provisions incorporated during the 20 years of so-called Tory misrule and acted upon during that time, when the overcrowding figure was very rapidly coming into operation all over the country. This is no longer possible, and the Minister is, very rightly, taking power to grant to local authorities the limited and local power to allow a greater degree of overcrowding than that which they previously had. The difficulty in which we are placed is clearly all the greater when the figure which was then suggested as an overcrowding figure was one which everyone agreed was higher than any of us could wish. While it may be necessary to include this new Clause in the Bill, it is an action which I think the House as a whole must deplore.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(DEVELOPMENT CHARGES.)

For the purposes of Part 11 of this Act any development charge payable under the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, in respect of


approved improvement works, shall be treated as expense incurred in the execution of those works.—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this new Clause is to inquire of the Minister whether he is now able to make a statement upon this subject. The question of development charges was raised in the concluding stages of our Debates on the Bill in Committee. It was clear that a point of some importance had arisen. The Minister then undertook to look into the question and, if possible, to make a statement. I move this new Clause with the object of obtaining from the Minister, if he is able to make it, the statement which he then thought he would be able to make.

Mr. Bevan: I am happy to say that I am now in a position to make to the House the statement which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, I promised when the matter was discussed in Committee. If hon. Members will cast their minds back, they will recall that this was an extremely complicated matter, as indeed are all these questions of deciding where a development charge alights; It must be borne in mind that here we are dealing with a type of property which has, in fact, attracted a grant from public funds on certain very restricted conditions. These restricted conditions have the effect of keeping down the value of the property to the owner of the property, because, under the terms of the Bill, the rent is fixed where a cottage will be let for the first time and when it is a rented cottage at the present time the addition to the rent is limited by the conditions of the grant. Therefore, it cannot logically be said that a development grant ought to be paid by an owner who has not in fact obtained from the development any addition to the value of his property.
For those reasons, I am informed, it is highly improbable that a development charge would ever alight; certainly it could not alight if the capacity had not been increased by more than 10 per cent. Even if that be the case, steps will be taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning to exempt this class of property from the payment of a development charge. I

think that is the assurance Members of the Standing Committee desired me to give, and I am now very happy to be able to give it.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I should like to say a word or two on what the Minister has said, and on the liability to a development charge of cottages or houses improved under an improvement grant. Perhaps it is right to say that, quite apart from the express exemptions that the Minister of Town and Country Planning may see fit to make by way of regulation, it is, at any rate in my view, very improbable that such work would in any event attract the liability to a development charge. If the House will bear with me for a moment, I should like to say what I think the position will be, because this may be a matter of some interest to those who are seeking to take advantage of these provisions when this Bill becomes law.
In the first place, it might well be that these operations would not require an application for planning permission at all; and, as the House will appreciate, if there is no requirement for a planning permission there can be no liability to a development charge. I think it likely that the bulk of these operations would come outside the liability to planning permission, on account of the provisions of Section 12 (2, a) of the Town and Country Planning Act. Even if they do not come within that exemption, they will almost certainly come within the exemption from development charge specified in paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to that Act. Therefore, in at any rate the vast majority of these cases there can, I think, be little reason for anybody seeking to carry out these works as a result of an improvement grant to have any perturbation as to their position in regard to a development charge. Those few who may be concerned in spite of this will be reassured by what the Minister has now said.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. I am glad that the Minister has found himself able to make this declaration, although, having been a Minister, I have always a slight uneasiness about declarations made by Ministers indicating that another Minister will do something; the other


Minister does not always take the same view, and when I hear that steps will be taken by the Minister of Town and Country Planning to ensure the results which the Minister of Health seeks to bring about, I trust that it will be possible, at any rate in another place, to indicate the kind of steps which the Minister has in mind. It may be that this case will not arise; and in some cases, of course, the amount will be small and will not attract the attention of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. But, as we have already seen, even from the Clauses we have been discussing this afternoon, there may be cases in which the improvement is considerable, and where, although the return is limited, it might yet well be held that a substantial advantage was accruing to the owner of the property.
The difficulty I see is that, like everything else that has been done over the Town and Country Planning Act charges, this will have repercussions upon other properties and in other conditions, which I do not think we can foresee at this moment. If it is to be held that no property is to be liable to a development charge, if the development is hedged about by restrictions which forbid an increased return to be derived from the property, then a new set of circumstances may apply in cases where previously it has been thought that a development charge might be attracted by alterations in the capital value of the property. At any rate, I am sure that cannot be entirely ruled out.
While I welcome this declaration on this occasion, I think it does prove the increasing difficulty into which the development of property is being plunged by the operation of the Town and Country Planning Act and the necessity which will arise for still further declarations to be made by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and it may well lead to requests for sanction to some of those arrangements from the House. I cannot feel that in every case he will be able merely by administrative action to obviate the difficulties which are arising on every hand. Today, however, an action has been taken which removes this property from the purview of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, for which the whole House, and we on this side especially, are grateful.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: As I raised this matter in Committee, perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words. First, I am very glad that the Minister has been able to make this announcement. I think he has saved himself what might have been a very considerable difficulty, in that in those cases where a development charge might have been attracted the purpose of this Bill might have been thwarted. On the assurance the Minister has given us, that is not likely to happen. But I do not think that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has made his own task very much easier, because it is quite clear that in these cases there will be exceptions to what has been a general rule, and once one starts privilege, so to speak, amongst certain types of property, I think that the Minister of Town and Country Planning will find that his already complicated Act will become even more complicated. Nevertheless, as far as the Minister of Health is concerned, I can only congratulate him on having saved himself what might have been a great difficulty.

Mr. Bevan: With the permission of the House, I want to make it quite clear, in the first place, that I have already consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning on this matter. I did not quite like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's inference—it was almost an inference—that on this matter I was giving the House of Commons an assurance not on behalf of the Government as a whole. It is on behalf of the Government as a whole; the Minister of Town and Country Planning has already had his attention called to the matter, and has agreed to act in the way I have suggested. In order that I might protect my right hon. Friend from having this regarded as a precedent, I should like to reiterate the grounds upon which this statement is made. The grounds upon which it is made are that, in fact, this type of property ought not to pay a development charge because the conditions under which the grant is made preclude the owner from having an increment of value in his property.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: An added increment?

Mr. Bevan: An increment is an addition.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is it an annual increment, or an added increment?

Mr. Bevan: Any increment whatsoever, because as I have already explained—I do not want to repeat myself and I do so only in order that there shall be no misunderstanding of the grounds upon which this property is to be exempted—the owner of the property cannot have an improvement grant without first of all agreeing that the money value of his property shall not be increased. That is the ground upon which the exemption will be given.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Perhaps I might speak again with the leave of the House. The money value of his property shall not be increased during the period over which the restricted covenant runs.

Mr. Bevan: That is 20 years.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes.

Mr. Bevan: That is the usual period.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is quite true, but it has been contended, and it will be of interest in other connections, that the residual value might remain, which would inure to the benefit of the landlord, and it was on that ground that some Members opposite strongly urged the refusal of grants in certain cases. I only rise to say that this means that when the period has run out, the residual value may inure to the property owner. It is true that, technically speaking, the 20-year period of accountancy exhausts that right, but the Minister will agree that there are many cases, especially buildings of historic interest, where the value is not exhausted in that period. I am glad that in this case the Minister is waiving that; it does bring in a class of property where certain residual values will inure to the property owners after the expiry of the restrictive covenant.

Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked twice to speak again by leave of the House, I might point out that as the Bill comes from a Committee upstairs, the Mover of an Amendment can speak more than once without the leave of the House.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 1.—(REMOVAL OF REFERENCES TO THE WORKING CLASSES FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSING ACT, 1936.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(d) remove the limitation confining to houses for the working classes the class of houses for the purposes of the construction, improvement or purchase of which money may be lent by the Public Works Loan Commissioners under section ninety-two of the principal Act.
As the position stands, the Public Works Loan Board, under Section 92 of the Housing Act, 1936, has power to make direct loans to certain bodies and persons for the construction, improvement, or purchase of houses for the working classes. This Amendment is to carry out the promise my right hon. Friend made to extend the powers of the Board to enable them to make direct loans for general housing.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We think that this Amendment is a reasonable one and do not therefore propose to offer any objections.

Mr. Austin: As I see it, this Amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Bill, which in the first instance raises the amount from £1,500 to £5,000 and therefore brings within its orbit houses that cannot be classed as working-class. The point I wish to put is this. If the Public Works Loan Commissioners are to be able to lend money over an increased range to private individuals, it occurs to me that this position may arise. The Loan Commissioners lend money at the rate of 3 per cent. to local authorities who then lend the money out to the prospective house owner at the rate of 3¼ per cent., charging only ¼ per cent. for administration. What safeguard is there, where money is advanced to private individuals, or to a company, or to a finance house, that the persons concerned do not lend the money above 3¼ per cent.? It might well be the case that the Loan Commissioners may be lending money to a bank or finance corporation who in their turn may be lending the money to people desiring to buy their houses, not at 3¼ per cent. but at 4 per cent., which is the amount charged by building societies or banks.

Mr. Bevan: This does' not affect the principle of the law as it stands. All


this does is to extend the range of property upon which the Public Works Loan Board can lend money. The dangers that my hon. Friend apprehends have existed—if at all—so long as the powers exist. There is no difference in degree but only in range. I doubt whether statutorily the Public Works Loan Board can lend money to some one who can then in their turn lend it. I think they have to lend it to the ultimate recipient.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he is extending the range, I take it that he is extending the limit of £1,500; otherwise it is a very tight limit indeed if the amount is still £1,500. I should have hoped that along with this extension he would have been able to raise the figure to that which he has used in the Bill, namely, £5,000. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will look into that?

Mr. Bevan: There is no limit at all.

Mr. Austin: There appears to be some doubt on the question I put. Will my right hon. Friend therefore look into it between now and the remaining stages of the Bill?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly I will look at it, but I should be surprised to find that what my hon. Friend apprehends is statutorily possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(QUASHING OF CERTAIN DEMOLITION ORDERS.)

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out "are satisfied," and to insert:
within a period of two years from the commencement of this Act certify.
As the new Clause dealing with the quashing of certain demolition orders has not been called we are thrown back on this Amendment to try to make this Clause of some use in bringing back some of the condemned cottages to a state of occupancy. Under the Clause, a condemned house can be reprieved if the work can be carried out within 12 months. As I know two rural district councils which have been trying for two or three years to get a licence to erect cottages, it will be appreciated that this Clause will be of no value at all to an owner. We are endeavouring by this Amendment to extend the period to two years from the

passing of the Act for the completion of the work.
We feel that in these days of housing shortages it is essential to explore every avenue to try to reduce the queues. In our experience, and I am speaking more of the country than of the towns, there has been no standard of condemnation. It has merely been left to the whims of the sanitary inspector with little architectural knowledge, to decide whether a house should be condemned. We think that if some of these houses could be reprieved, it would be of considerable help. I know of many houses which have been condemned because the roof wanted raising or because there was no damp course.
These houses could be made habitable especially for old age pensioners and people with limited incomes, where the alternative is to pay £1 or 30s. rent which they cannot possibly afford. The rents of these new houses are being increased so much that many people waiting for them are withdrawing their names because they cannot afford to pay the rents. Last week in my constituency a rural district council which is building new cottages suggested that their rents would be 31s. 6d. per week. The result was that eight applicants wrote protesting against the proposed rents, while two withdrew their names.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: Would the hon. Member like to inform the House which local authority has stated that the rents might be 31s. 6d. a week?

Mr. Baldwin: The Leominster Rural District Council in Herefordshire. I have taken this figure from the local newspaper, and I have no reason to believe that it is not correct.

Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Member vouch for the accuracy of the local paper?

Mr. Baldwin: I do not vouch for anything in a newspaper, though I have reason to believe that the statement is true. However, whether the rent is 25s, a week or 31s. 6d. my argument remains. If an opportunity can be given to people, especially old people, to live in small houses which can be put into a reasonably good condition that opportunity should be given. There is no desire on this side


of the house to have sub-standard houses, but we know that there are houses which, with the expenditure of a reasonable sum of money, can be made fit for human habitation. If that were done there would be a bigger queue waiting for them than there is for some of the new houses which are to be let at high rents.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I beg to second the Amendment.
I was not on the Committee upstairs, but I have read the Debate on this issue very carefully and I cannot help feeling that when the Minister said what he did say in Committee he was rather belittling the case. I do not wish to fall into the same fault in the opposite direction by exaggerating; I do not think that anyone on this side of the House who is supporting the Amendment, is doing so as an excuse for lower standards of housing. One of the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman upstairs was that he had been unwilling to put the Clause into the Bill at all because he feared that it might be used as an excuse for low standard housing. He also expressed the fear that if he allowed any latitude in the matter of demolition orders, he would be opening the door to a demand for a complete reconsideration and revision of the whole system, to which he would take the strongest possible objection.
I believe that in this Amendment we can meet both these fears. First, it is clear that the approval of the local authority is essential because the local authority themselves will put forward a claim to the court for freedom, so that if the Clause were amended as we suggest, it could not possibly be used to lower standards to a degree which none of us desires. Second, there is a time limit of two years. It may or may not be the case that it is easy to get work done in some parts of the country, but where I live I do not think anyone would guarantee that the sort of work which is contemplated here—very considerable adjustments—could assuredly be done within 12 months.
Let us consider what steps have to be taken before the stage is reached where the local authority can go to the court. First, the owner has to have the house carefully examined, and plans and specifications drawn up. The cost has to be

estimated and then the plans, specifications and estimate have to be submitted to the local authority. Not only that, but, if the owner is wise, under the procedure set out in the Clause, he will not only submit but will also consult with the local authority as to exactly how the work should be done, and whether the work, if it is done, will be sufficient and of such a nature as will enable the local authority to go to the court if they themselves have been satisfied that the house is being improved to the necessary standards.
Then the actual work has to be carried out. There may be considerable discussion between the owner and the local authority. The local authority may argue that one form of alteration is satisfactory to them and in turn, the owner may argue that another form of alteration is not only more satisfactory but cheaper. I am not suggesting that they will get into a long-drawn argument and dispute merely for the fun of doing it, but both must be satisfied that not more than a certain amount of money is to be spent.
When it comes to making alterations to an existing house that is not a very easy matter to decide. Alterations are not done quickly or easily. It is not the sort of job to which a large number of men can be put at the same time. Then we come to the final approval of the local authority which may say, when the work is completed, "If you do a little more we would be only too ready to go to the court and apply for the demolition order to be quashed." That may result in further discussion and further delay as a result of more work having to be carried out. All that would have to be done within 12 months.
There is another matter which can arise. When the local authority have satisfied themselves, they have then to frame their case in such a way as to satisfy the court. The court will not merely be satisfied by the local authority saying, "The work has been carried out in accordance with our orders and to our approval." There may also be another set of circumstances which may be embarrassing. There is the question as to whether the owner of the house will be entitled to a grant for the work which has been done. When the work which is being done has been done, and the local authority have gone to the court and the


court have quashed the demolition order, there must be discussion between the owner and the local authority.
The Minister said he did not think that any of these houses would attract grant. I do not know whether he was right or not, but I cannot find anything in the Bill which rules them out. I am assuming that they will attract grant if the work is carried out to the satisfaction of the local authority and the demolition order is quashed. How much will qualify for grant is a matter which will have to be discussed with the local authority before the work is started. Under Clause 19 if any question of improvement grant arises at all the local authority has to consider the plans from that aspect, and not from whether the house is capable of being occupied when work has been done to it. This Clause as it stands even with the Amendment leaves a serious matter for the owner to decide. If there is no interim quashing of the order, the owner would have to be given fair time to consider whether he is prepared to take the risk involved in such work. He would be in a precarious position. If that doubt were removed from his mind, he will take less time to consider it. Therefore, we will have to allow him time to consider it when there is not an interim order to prevent the local authority demolishing the house. For all these reasons the Amendment is necessary.
Finally, I should like to say that in one local authority in my division I find that there are some 34 houses which in the eyes of that local authority are capable of reconditioning up to the standard which we should all like to see. Of those 34 houses, 30 are in occupation, and on 18 the local authority themselves have already spent money. That money was obviously spent during the war when they had to be requisitioned, and when houses had to be found for people sent in to the district under the evacuation scheme. It is not such a fiddling little matter as the Minister would have had the Committee believe upstairs. It is quite a considerable matter.

Mr. Alpass: But did the local authority concerned serve a demolition order with respect to the houses the hon. Gentleman has mentioned?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Of course, they did. I am talking about houses which are

subject to demolition orders, and if the hon. Gentleman has not heard that he has not been listening to what I have been saying. That is the whole object of this Clause.

Mr. Alpass: Were the local authority satisfied that those houses could not be made fit for human habitation at reasonable expense?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member knows the answer to that point perfectly well. At the time when those demolition orders were made, the local authority felt absolutely justified in saying that within a reasonable expense the houses could not be brought into a habitable condition.
These were all pre-war demolition orders. Now when housing costs are so much higher and a greater expenditure is economically possible than it was at the time when the demolition orders were made, reconsideration should be allowed because this sort of case is common up and down the country. Out of those 34 houses which are capable of being made decent and habitable, 12 have had work done by the rural district council, and they come under the heading of "Houses taken over for the purposes of emergency housing." They still continue to be occupied. A further four are vacant. This is in only one rural district. It may well be on reconsideration that the Minister may cut the 34 to 17. I do not mind if he does cut them, but it is a considerable number for one rural district. This is by no means a small matter. Under the present economic situation, all sorts of things can be done by reconstruction more cheaply compared to the building costs of new houses than was the case when the demolition order was made.
Another reason why I would urge the Minister to be careful before he rejects this Amendment is that, upstairs in Committee, he said it was not his purpose or aim to salvage that kind of cottage. I would ask him to reconsider that very wide and sweeping statement, because in these days one of his acutest problems is the salvage of timber. I would draw his attention to the fact that one of the great advantages of reconditioning cottages at the present time is the immense saving in the use of timber. If he wants to use every ounce of new timber for new


houses, I would ask him, when considering this, to allow this additional time, so that all possible houses which are under a demolition order can be examined to see whether they can be brought up to the standard which we all want to see. If that is properly done, I claim that 12 months is not long enough.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: Perhaps the House will not mind me making a statement at this moment, because as I have already informed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) I shall be compelled to leave the House for a little while at 5 o'clock. The arguments to which I have just listened, and some of the arguments I have seen in the Press upon this matter, are a lesson to Ministers to make no concessions at all in matters of this sort. This particular part of the Bill arose as a result of a reflection of mine that it might have happened—and indeed on inquiries I find it did happen—that owing to the acute housing shortage and the impossibility of looking forward to any increased accommodation during the war, some owners of condemned houses had, in fact, spent money upon them. Indeed, where it had been possible to do it, substantial sums were spent and the houses were brought up to habitable condition. Nevertheless, under the law, they stood condemned, and unless they were rescued by an Amendment they would be demolished.
It occurred to me that it would be a foolish thing to allow a perfectly good house to be pulled to the ground because no steps had been taken to shift its legal qualification. It is not intended to reprieve condemned houses. The Opposition have got it all wrong. It is not intended to give the owners of condemned houses a second opportunity to have demolition orders revised or re-examined.

Mr. Leslie Hale: We agree that it is not the intention, but what is there in the Clause to prevent its being done by a reactionary council?

Mr. Bevan: I am going to show how it is impossible for it to be done. Within a year of the passing of the Act the owner of a cottage must go to the local authority and say, "I have improved that house." Obviously where no work had been done

on the house before, it would be clear to the local authority that the house, which was condemned before the war and had had nothing at all spent on it in the meantime, must be in a deplorable condition. Consequently, very substantial sums indeed would have to be spent upon it in order to cause the local authority to change its ground. I agree with hon. Members opposite that there will not be many instances where cottages will be worked upon in the year after the passing of this Bill. That is the answer to my hon. Friend. No owner will spend large sums of money after the passage of the Bill on the off-chance of a local authority agreeing to get rid of a demolition order.

Mr. Hale: May I point out that paragraph (a) appears to exclude from the provisions of the Clause the unoccupied house in respect of which an order has been made? I can see nothing in paragraph (b) which prevents the local authority from giving their decision after the work has been done, if the application has been made within 12 months and before that work has been done.

Mr. Bevan: There is nothing at all. The law applying to demolition orders has not been altered. All that we are saying is that where a house is subject to a demolition order, then, within 12 months after the passing of the Bill it is possible for the owner to appeal to the local authority to reverse their decision. All I can say is that the local authority are not going to give their decision before the work is done. The work has either been done before, in which case it is possible for the local authority to make up their minds, or the work will have to be done. The local sanitary inspector may say to the owner: "In my view, speaking privately, if all this is done, the house will be all right," but the local authority are not going to enter into a contract with the owner of a property and say: "If this work is done it will be all right." The owner has either done the work, or he will have to undertake the work blindly. I want him to do it in that way. I will explain why.
I want to disabuse the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite of one particular idea. This work will not be the subject of grant. No grant is payable upon a house which is subject to a demolition order, no matter what is done to it. We are not here speaking about public funds


being paid out to reprieve condemned houses. The owner will have to spend upon his house a very substantial sum of money after the passage of 11 years in order to satisfy the local authorities that a demolition order ought not to be made good.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman forgetting the case of which I have just told him, where the houses have been in the hands of the local authority throughout the war after demolition orders had been made against them and where just sufficient work of a temporary nature has been done on them to keep them habitable? He appears to be forgetting that case when he says that the houses have been uninhabitable all these years.

Mr. Bevan: I did not say that they had all been uninhabited. I said that they were subject to demolition orders, although they may have been inhabited in the meantime because there was nowhere else for people to go. The main purpose of the relief is not that owners of condemned houses may rush desperately to get the work done upon them in order that the houses may be reprieved but in order substantially to assist those who have already done work upon their cottages and where some small amount of additional work will be necessary to get the demolition orders abolished.

Mr. Austin: My right hon. Friend has just said, repeating what he said in Committee, that houses of this nature, the subject of demolition orders, do not attract grant. We looked for it in the Committee stage, and I have been looking for it since, but I cannot find the place in the Bill where that is expressly stated.

Mr. Bevan: The answer is in the conditions attached to the giving of the grant. Local authorities will have to approve schemes beforehand. They cannot approve them retrospectively. They cannot say: "We are very glad to see that you have spent £600 upon your house. Here is £300.". The local authority have to approve improvement schemes before the grant is paid. We are dealing here with schemes to which the local authority would not give prior approval.
I want to give a substantial reason why I do not want these houses to be reprieved too much if hardly any work

has been done upon them. They are in the class of houses upon which a very great deal of labour and material would have to be spent instead of being far better spent upon the improvement of houses which are not the subject of demolition orders or upon the building of new houses. It is not true to say that, if we did what the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) wants us to do—as he has said elsewhere—this is a way of getting additional accommodation in the countryside. I say that it is a way of getting less accommodation. It is a way of spending a very large amount of labour and material upon property to the neglect of other properties that could quite easily be redeemed if that were done, and to the neglect of new building. I hope that hon. Members will realise that this opening of the demolition order procedure is exceedingly dangerous. I did it with the utmost reluctance: I will not yield any more on this matter. We have gone as far as we reasonably can be expected to go. I am sure that if the House opened this gate any wider they would have protests from all the local authorities of Britain.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I am sorry that the Minister has rejected the Amendment in those terms. I do not think he quite understands the scope of the problem. The 12 months time-limit laid down in the Bill is causing widespread concern to many rural district councils. There are various reasons why it will be impossible in many cases, with the best will in the world, to complete the work within 12 months. The Minister has named two of the reasons. One is that in many cases considerable sums of money will have to be spent upon putting the houses now subject to demolition orders into decent repair, and it will mean going through all the paraphernalia of applying for licences for work over £100.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member must take also the other point which I made, that this is not the first class of houses upon which these powers ought to be used. There are other classes of cottage in the countryside that ought not to be neglected in order that these that are trembling on the edge of the grave should be plucked back.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I was trying to explain to the right hon. Gentleman why the limitation of 12 months is no good.


It will be physically impossible to get the work done within that time, because of the difficulties in getting licences and permits through in time to complete the work. The second reason is that many cottages which have been the subject of demolition orders are still occupied. With the best will in the world, how can an owner who may wish to put into good repair a house subject to a demolition order be able to do so until he can find alternative accommodation for the individuals who occupy the property? That straightaway knocks out the 12 months time-limit.
I have a letter here from the Rural District Councils Association who say straight out, that demolition orders were made in a number of cases by local authorities at a time when property owners were not in a position to carry out the necessary repairs, namely, during the war. Now the owners are able to do so, but because of the 12 months limit it will be totally impracticable for them to do so, for the reasons that have been given from these benches. It is very short-sighted of the Government to refuse to extend the time limit. They are deliberately knocking down, in the physical sense, accommodation which, if the limit were extended for another six months or a year, might last perfectly well for a great many years.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Hale: The discussion seems to have proceeded on a misapprehension of what the Clause says. There appears on this side of the House to be no misapprehension, however—and I am glad of it—about what the Clause is intended to mean. However, I still have some apprehension as to what may be the effect if it goes forward as it is. The Amendment has been moved by the Opposition on the ground that it provides an additional time limit. I see no time limit at all in paragraph (b). I understood the Minister to say that there is not one, and certainly there does not appear to me to be one. The position is that under paragraph (a) an application has to be made to the local authority within 12 months of the time when the Act comes into force.
The position under paragraph (b), as it is drafted, is that at any time thereafter, whether the repairs have been done

after the application or before it, the local authority may decide to give their certificate and make application to the county court or to express their satisfaction, according to whichever is the form of the Clause at the end. An application is then made to the county court. It is right that I should ask the House at this moment to consider the position when the application is made to the county court. One rather gets the reassuring thought that that is a safeguard, but, of course, it is not, because nobody having a right to object will be before the county court. All that happens is that a county court judge, who adjudicates over a very wide area, will have put before him an application by the local authority saying, "We certify that this house is now rendered fit for human habitation by certain works which have been done since the order became operative, and we ask you to cancel the order."
For all practical purposes the county court judge will have no alternative to agreeing. There will be no ground on which he can decide to do otherwise. He will not see the property but will merely see a certificate by the town clerk of the local authority, and he will have to say, "Very well. There being no evidence by the opposition, I quash the order accordingly." Hon. Members would not contemplate that procedure with any pleasure, but it is right——

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the middle of a sentence, but he went rather faster than I expected. Does he not agree that if the county court judge did not feel himself satisfied under the terms laid down by the statute, there is nothing to prevent him from going and viewing the property?

Mr. Hale: There is nothing to prevent him, but with great respect to that section of the judiciary, for whom I have approval, and more approval than for others, there is no impulse for him to do so. If a town clerk says that he is certain about it, there is no reason why the county court judge should suspect it. The county court judge has no standards to apply, he is an exceedingly overworked individual, and he has no impulse or reason to go and view the property, and there will be no one in the court to suggest that it would be a good idea if he went. Subject to that, the hon. Member


for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is strictly correct in saying that the county court judge could view the property, if inspiration came upon him at that moment or if he did not like the look of the town clerk's face, which is quite a possibility, from my experience of town clerks.
Having got that, we therefore come to what is a very fair question to put to the Minister. In answer to my first interjection, the Minister gave a completely satisfactory explanation which he proceeded to demolish in answer to my second. We ought to have it clear. I want to know this. If the reactionary council of some South Coast town which has resented over the years the necessity of having to demolish or make demolition orders in respect of wholly uninhabitable houses, sees in this Clause a chance to reverse that procedure and to assist the landlords in re-opening those properties, what is there in the wording of the Clause to prevent it and what power do the Ministry reserve to themselves against it?
As drafted, the Clause says, first, that an application shall be made within 12 months from the commencement of the Act. I see nothing in the wording to say that the repairs must by then have been done. The right hon. Gentleman said that it certainly is his intention that that is the type of thing for which he is making provision—a house which is being occupied, a house which is being rehabilitated, a house that is being used now in respect of which an order has been made, and the order should as a matter of justice be moved out of the way. I see nothing wrong with that, but there is nothing to limit it to that. Secondly, the local authority, with no limit on time, may say that they are satisfied as a result of negotiations, as a result of the owner seeing the town clerk, as a result of the submission of a proposal, such as, "We will plaster the ceiling and put a new door in or patch up the windows," that the house is fit for human habitation and get a certificate from the county court.
It is sought to amend the Clause as drafted. The Clause does not give reasonable safeguards that the Minister's clear intention in the matter shall be the only intention carried out, and I ask him to look at the matter before it goes to another place and see that it is so safeguarded that we shall not have the reproach

made against us that we are reopening ancient and unworthy property or even that we are giving power for any reactionary council to try to do so.

Mr. Turton: The speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) clearly demonstrates that an Amendment of this type is needed. As he says, the Clause as drafted makes nonsense. There is no real clarity as to what the Government intend to do about the Clause. Both in Committee and today the Minister pretended that he was dealing only with a very limited number of houses which had been subject to demolition orders and had been improved in order to provide for evacuees in reception areas, and then he went on to explain that it would also be open to other classes of cases. It must be either one thing or the other. If he intends only to deal with houses subject to demolition orders which have already been improved, he should have in the Clause a phrase such as, "works executed prior to the coming into operation of the Act." But he does not want that. He wants to do something else, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, "in view of the peculiar circumstances of the immediate post-war period."
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what are the peculiar circumstances of the post-war period which are causing this wider altering of demolition orders. I believe it is wise. I think it is because when the demolition orders were made before the war, the cost of building a new house was about £290, but the cost of building a new house today is £1,200. The problem therefore has an entirely new aspect. A house which might not have been worth while improving when a new house cost £290, may today, when building costs are so much higher for a new house, be improved at an economic rate. As the Minister pointed out, the owner who does this will be doing it not with any Government grant but because he regards it as the only way of keeping the house habitable for the tenant. Many of these houses are habitable.
I ask the Government to consider how we are to improve the accommodation in many of the rural areas. I am very alarmed because not only have we these houses which were condemned before the war, but we have also a new crop of houses which will become condemnable


in the next ten years. We have the prefabricated houses and, what are very nearly slums already, many new temporary hutments. Therefore, the present Government or the next Government will have to face the question of a large amount of property which may have to be demolished in the next ten years. The more we can do in this period to improve property which was condemned before the war so that it can become of good standard, the better it will be at that time. If the Government thought that these temporary hutments and camps where people are being housed at present would last very much longer than five years, I am sure they will be very much disappointed.
We therefore suggest the two stages. I believe that we ought to have nearly six months for the first stage for the owners to put in their applications to have the right for this Clause to operate. They will have to get licences from the Ministry of Works, which will take some considerable time. If that is a short period, we want a much longer period afterwards. We want no ugly rush to get this work put before the ordinary building work in the rural areas. The effect of the Minister's 12 months will be that the owner will try to rush this work in priority to other work in those rural areas. Therefore, I ask for an 18-month period for the second part. I believe that this Amendment will carry out the intention of the Minister, although it would be improved if he altered 12 months earlier to six months. I hope he will reconsider his attitude to this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The House, which certainly is not clear about the wording of the Clause and of the Amendment, is quite clear about the intention, and on this point there is a division of opinion between the two sides which we shall need to register. The Minister said both here and in Committee that it was not intended to reprieve condemned houses and, indeed, he uttered a bitter lamentation against making any concessions in any circumstances. I sympathise with him, because if one opens a gate it is surprising how much pressure there is from people who try to pass through it. As one who has been a Minister, I can only say that the pressure during the passage of a Bill through the House is

nothing to the pressure which comes upon one after it is on the Statute Book.
Even before the war I was under pressure from hon. Members in various parts of the House, including that vigorous person, Mrs. Tate, who then sat for the Frome Division and had some houses in her constituency which were subject to a demolition order. By her importunity—a quality in which many Members, particularly feminine Members, are experts and which dates back a long time and even into Scriptural periods—by virtue of her importunity the houses were not demolished, and afterwards came in extremely useful, and are inhabited to this day. One can truly say down there, that if one seeks a monument to the late Member, one has only to look around to see a row of houses now inhabited, which, but for her exertions, would not be there.
In the Minister's contention, a house which had been subject to a demolition order, and on which nothing has been done since, must be in a deplorable condition. That is not always so. If I might ask the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) to consider his own argument, it was vitiated by his accidental use of the words "town clerk." These are not always houses in towns but, more frequently, houses in the countryside where it is not infrequent that a house which has not met with the full approval of the local authority is one which is not only perfectly habitable but which, for certain reasons, is preferable to some of the new buildings that have been constructed since it was put up. There may be reasons of the lowness of the ceiling or of the insufficiency of window space that could be remedied but which, previous to the war, people thought were not worth altering. Now, as has been said, there are many temporary dwellings of a much lower standard which will have to be inhabited for some years to come. This makes it desirable that any reinforcement of the housing accommodation of this country should be continued as long as it serves a useful purpose.
The strongest argument of the Minister was that he did not wish to concentrate either building labour or material upon this class of dwellings because they could be more usefully concentrated on dwellings of a better class. That was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing),


who pointed out that in certain respects, particularly that of timber, there is a saving in material in bringing up to date an older house, and that it is an actual advantage to the building resources of this country to utilise these dwellings.
5.15 p.m.
Admittedly we are in a difficulty here. The words "demolition orders" conjure up an image of a house which none of us wishes to reprieve. However, I ask the House to consider the safeguards which the Minister himself has imported into this legislation. First, an application has to receive the sanction of the very local authority which issued the demolition order and which, therefore, by hypothesis, may be expected to know most about it.

Mr. Hale: It does not include the last 12 months.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That deals with half of the objection raised by the hon. Member for Oldham because he postulated a local authority so reactionary that it would gladly not condemn a house. But this local authority has condemned a house and, therefore, it escapes from the hon. Member's definition of a reactionary local authority. The only question is, can it have second thoughts? Well, second thoughts are not always reactionary, they can be advantageous; but in any event the second safeguard appears to be the county court judge. The hon. Member for Oldham said that there would be nobody in court to suggest that the judge should look at the house, and that the idea would never strike him unless he did not like the look of the town clerk's face. I wonder what class of judges the hon. Member is accustomed to practise before?

Mr. Hale: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must be fair. What I said was that there was no earthly reason why the judge should do so. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is I believe a member of a learned profession and certainly would speak with experience on this matter, should know that if an ex-parte application is made to a court and if there is no one to put another side, then the normal procedure of a perfectly proper and careful court is to grant the application.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I hesitate to discuss this matter with one qualified to

speak, because I am only a layman, but I should have thought that the court would take notice of the words "if he is satisfied that the house is so fit," and that it would not be so automatic a process as the hon. Member suggested. I say at any rate that the House is here safeguarding itself by the two strongest barriers it knows, the local authority and, above the local authority, the courts of the land. I should have thought these were strong barriers against any reckless or widespread lowering of standards, which is not what we desire.
The House is debating a comparatively small point about a comparatively small number of houses, but if it is true that this small number of houses is in an area in which it is considered that an unnecessary demolition takes place, it is liable to raise a great deal of trouble and discussion and a lot of correspondence for the Minister. As an ex-Minister I am trying to save the right hon. Gentleman correspondence which he will receive over this. As one who received an infinite deal of correspondence myself, my life was made a burden to me by more than one active Member of Parliament. Looking back on it over a period of some years, and from a position of less responsibility, I say that Members of Parliament were right and the Minister was wrong.
Now the same considerations may come into the mind of the present Minister at a later date, and I beg him to consider the relief to his thoughts in granting this small degree of latitude to himself and the satisfaction of feeling that he has not been weary in well doing. Although he has made a concession which has aroused a good deal of further pressure, if it is right that a further concession should be made, he should not withhold it from this House this afternoon, or from the country, merely on the ground that even then it might not be considered sufficient and that he might have to make some further extension.

Colonel Dower: I have not put my name to this Amendment but I wish to raise one point about it. I understood that in Committee the Minister said that the work was not necessarily to be completed within the 12 months. I believe he gave that impression. I am not concerned


with rotten property, but I am concerned about the genuine fellow who wants to take advantage of this provision and whose property is repairable.
I would point out to hon. Members that, with all the red tape and restrictions of one kind and another, it is not possible to get the work done in 12 months. If hon. Members try to do it themselves they will find that, with all the work of getting licences and permissions from the authorities, of making plans and specifications, and then to getting the builder, who has to find carpenters, bricklayers and the rest, even though they take off their coats and tighten their belts they cannot do it in time. In some cases they might just get through in time, but I do not think hon. Members would be so unreasonable as to say that there must be a race against time and that the work must be completed by the midnight hour. I should like to have some kind of assurance that, where there have been no delays at all, where people have been moving as fast as they could, in genuine cases which would meet with the approval of good-hearted people of all parties, they are not likely to be hit on the head if the works are not entirely finished by the midnight hour.

Mr. Mitchison: I have two suggestions to make to the Parliamentary Secretary. Both arise from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). I think the local authority must be satisfied at the time when the written request is made and there would be no difficulty in making that clear by a very simple addition to paragraph (b). I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the position of the county court judge. He has a duty as regards infants in some cases to protect their interests on ex-parte applications. It seems a very different matter to extend that parental responsibility to demolition orders and, in practice, I think this would either put the county court judge in a difficult position, or be nothing more than a waste of time and no safeguard. I suggest that some steps ought to be taken to provide an advocate for the demolition order—a devil's advocate if hon. Members like—even if that means giving any interested person, or the Minister himself—of course

through his local representative—power to intervene in defence of a demolition order.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sure my right hon. Friend would have been delighted to have the offer of consideration of the right hon. and gallant Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). We are interested to hear that we have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's anxiety and good will. I think my right hon. Friend made his intention very clear on this issue, that it is not our desire to divert the energy of our house building efforts to this class of property. I gained the impression from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that he almost thought we should concentrate our attention on condemned property. In spite of what has been said about certain individual cases, that unquestionably would be a most wasteful procedure on our part. Indeed, there has been some criticism today of our concentration upon repair work generally. This would be open to much more severe criticism. The anxiety is continuously to proceed as rapidly as possible with the construction of new houses and, in so far as there is a pool of labour and materials, to make this new provision for reconditioning in such suitable cases as the Bill provides.

Mr. Turton: I suggested 24 months instead of 12 in order that there would not be the rush of work which the Clause in its present form will cause.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We certainly do not believe that any owner of property is likely to come forward with new proposals to carry out new work under this Clause that has not already been undertaken and largely completed. I entirely agree with hon. Members opposite who say that in the period of 12 months new work of this kind cannot be undertaken with any expectation of completion within the period. That period has been put in on the clear understanding that we do not wish new work of this kind to be undertaken on condemned property, but where work has been undertaken and either completed, or very largely completed, we feel that the 12-month period is adequate.
In regard to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), my right hon. Friend has made his position perfectly clear and we would be


willing to look at the wording of the Clause to make sure that there is no doubt about it. I hope that assurance will not be taken to suggest that we are satisfied that we can find a better form of words, although we note the suggestion put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I want it to be quite clear that our intention is that expressed by my right hon. Friend, namely, that we desire to give the opportunity to owners of property which has been condemned and where the work has already been carried out, or so nearly carried out that it can be completed within the 12-month period, that there should be this release from the destruction of the house, which would otherwise take place. Beyond that, we do not expect this Clause to provide any opportunity

for new work, in cases which have not been already started.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain that he wishes to enforce people to live in only partially reconditioned houses which are subject to a demolition order longer than they need? That is what his policy means.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We are quite certain that if we allowed materials and labour to be diverted to this kind of purpose we would slow up the provision of new houses, for which we still consider there is a vital need.

Question put, "That the words 'are satisfied' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 215: Noes, 111.

Division No. 153].
AYES
[5.29 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Kirby, B. V.


Allen, A. C {Bosworth)
Dumpleton, C W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Levy, B. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Attewell, H. C.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Longden, F.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lyne, A. W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Ewart, R.
McAdam, W.


Balfour, A.
Fairhurst, F.
McAllister, G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Farthing, W. J.
McEntee, V. La T.


Barstow, P. G.
Field, Capt. W. J.
McGhee, H. G.


Barton, C.
Foot, M. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Battley, J. R.
Forman, J. C.
MacKay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gallacher, W.
McLeavy, F.


Berry, H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Beswick, F.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Goodrich, H. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Bing, G. H. C.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mellish, R. J.


Binns, J.
Gray, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Blackburn, A. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Monslow, W.


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Gunter, R. J.
Moody, A. S.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Guy, W. H.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Bramall, E. A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Murray, J. D.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hale, Leslie
Naylor, T. E.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamitton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Burden, T. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
O'Brien, T.


Burke, W. A.
Haworth, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Butter, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.


Byers, Frank
Holman, P.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Champion, A. J.
Horabin, T. L.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pearson, A.


Cobb, F. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Cocks, F. S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Popplewell, E.


Collick, P.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Collindridge, F.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Collins, V. J.
Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pritt, D. N.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Ranger, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jay, D. P. T.
Reeves, J.


Daggar, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Daines, P.
Jenkins, R. H.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)


Deer, G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dodds, N N.
Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)




Sharp, Granville
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Simmons, C. J.
Titterington, M. F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Skeffington, A. M.
Tolley, L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Skinnard, F. W.
Vernon, Maj. W F.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Viant, S. P.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Walkden, E.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Snow, J. W.
Walker, G. H.
Wise, Major F. J.


Soronsen, R. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wyatt, W.


Sparks, J. A.
Warbey, W, N.
Yates, V. F.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Stokes, R. R.
Weitzman, D.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
West, D. G.



Stross, Dr. B.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sylvester, G. D.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wigg, George
Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.
Erroll, F. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fox, Sir G.
Odey, G. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Orr-Ewmg, I. L.


Astor, Hon. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Peaks, Rt. Hon. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baxter, A. B.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lioyd (P'ke)
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, R. V.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boles, Lt.-Col. O. C. (Wells)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Raikes, H. V.


Boothby, R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ross, Sir R. O. (Londonderry)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.
Hope, Lord J.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T,
Howard, Hon. A.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Gasgow, C.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carson, E.
Lambert, Hon G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Challen, C.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Cole, T. L.
Low, A. R. W.
Teeling, William


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Touche, G. C.


Crowder, Capt, John E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


De la Bère, R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, B.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drewe, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Duthie, W. S.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Eccles, D. M.
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Nield, B. (Chester)
Major Conant and




Brigadier Mackeson.

Clause 6.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO MAKE ALLOWANCES TO CERTAIN PERSONS DISPLACED.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 7, line 24, to leave out "such," and to insert "a."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I think that the next six Amendments on the Order Paper, in lines 24 to 31, go together with this Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to read the Clause as it would appear with these seven Amendments

incorporated, so that hon. Members may readily see their full effect:
A local authority for the purposes of Part V of the principal Act may pay to any person displaced from a house or other building which has been purchased by them under that Part of that Act a reasonble allowance towards his expenses in removing, and to any person carrying on any trade or business in any such house or other building they may pay also a reasonable allowance towards the loss which he will sustain by reason of the disturbance of his trade or business consequent on his having to quit the house or building, and in estimating that loss regard shall be paid to the period for which the premises occupied by him might reasonably have been expected to be available for the purpose of his trade or business and the


availability of other premises suitable for that purpose.
That will show the House the effect of substituting the various words which these Amendments propose to incorporate and of deleting such words as are proposed to be deleted.
Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will recall the discussion which took place on this matter. Indeed the Committee was divided, and successfully divided, against Amendments which would have had very much the same effect as those now under consideration. As Members are aware, one of the purposes of a Report stage is to provide a sort of court of appeal to the whole House from the decisions arrived at in Committee upstairs. It is in that sense that we appeal to the House to decide on this important point today.
As hon. Members will see, the Clause as at present drafted, leaves a very wide discretion to the local authority. In the Committee discussions there was an Amendment to substitute "shall" for. "may." That does not figure among the Amendments which we are now considering, but as the House is aware, although "shall" can never mean "may" in the interpretation of a statute the word "may" can at any rate get very near to meaning "shall." If these Amendments are incorporated, "may" in the second line of the Clause will impose a duty upon the local authority to take the steps thereafter prescribed.
If this series of Amendments is accepted the local authority will be empowered, and to that extent obliged, to make a reasonable allowance in respect of the cost of removal and the cost of disturbance in cases of compulsory acquisition under Part V of the Housing Act, 1936. I feel sure that the House as a whole will agree that in such circumstances, compensation under those heads should always be paid to a person thus dispossessed, and if that is so it is clear that the amount that should be paid should be a reasonable amount. The attitude of the Government in this matter is first of all that local authorities should be left with a very wide discretion, though in view of what the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) said about certain local authorities in the Debate which we have just concluded, it is clear that the

supporters of the Government do not ascribe the same degree of wisdom to all local authorities.

Mr. Hale: The only point that I was making was that, on the whole, the standard of intelligence of local authorities is now slightly less than it was a couple of months ago.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member now assesses the intelligence of local authorities on a time basis. I understood from his previous speech that it was assessed on a purely geographical basis, and that by some curious topographical idiosyncrasy, the nearer they were to the sea the less their intelligence appeared to be.
5.45 p.m.
The second defence of the Government in this matter was that the Clause as framed, reproduces exactly or very nearly the words of the previous statute. Why that very conservative approach should be put up so often by the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend I am never quite clear. Surely it is right that the House of Commons should keep before it the possibility of making progress in these matters and of improving the words of our statutes so as to give effect to what is the real intention of the House of Commons? If these Amendments are incorporated in the Clause so as to give it the effect which it would have in the terms which I read out in moving this Amendment, the assessment of compensation will cease to be a discretionary matter for the local authority. Surely that is right.
The traditional attitude towards compulsory acquisition and compensation as shown in the statutes governing these matters is that, whereas compulsory acquisition is a matter of policy, and therefore the decision as to whether or not compulsory acquisition is to be carried out is left, with appropriate safeguards, to the acquiring authority, the question of compensation is decided according to certain prescribed standards and is not left to the decision of the local authority. Clearly that is as it should be because the amount of loss, and therefore the entitlement to compensation, can be objectively assessed as a matter of fact, and need not be left to the local authority. That is the effect of the Amendments which it is sought to make


in the latter part of this Clause, which require a reasonable allowance towards the loss and enact that the estimate of the loss shall have regard to certain specified matters.
The Clause as at present drafted, leaves it to the local authority to give an opinion on the matter of compensation. I am sure that the House will agree that people who are dispossessed in these circumstances, although it may be that the requirements of the community necessitate their being dispossessed, are nevertheless entitled to proper compensation objectively and reasonably arrived at. It is to secure that we on this side of the House have put down these Amendments, and it gives me great pleasure to move the first of them.

Mr. Hare: I beg to second the Amendment.
The answer which we shall get from the Parliamentary Secretary will probably be the same as that which we got when we discussed this matter in Committee. Neither my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) nor my hon. Friends thought that that was reasonable. That is why we are seeking to appeal on the Floor of the House of Commons for what we consider to be the just protection of the rights of the individual against a local authority which might not be prepared to take a reasonable view. I do not think that the House should quarrel with this view. We feel that those people who are dispossessed through no fault of their own should have certain definite protection in law. If this Bill passes through its various stages we see that there will be on the Statute Book a definite loop-hole as a result of which those just rights will not be protected. I do not wish to elaborate this theme, which has been ably and clearly put by my hon. Friend. It is in the nature of an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary that I have ventured to detain the House for a few minutes, because I feel that where the House of Commons can protect the individual, the House has the duty to do so.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This Amendment concerns a very narrow point, and I am really surprised that it has been thought necessary to put it down on the Report stage. I say that because, although the

hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) suggested it was a rather strange argument for me to suggest that this had been the standard wording of previous statutes on this issue, and he apparently thinks that I should take a different line by assuming that the wording would automatically be wrong, it is competent for me to suggest the argument that previous Administrations over quite a long period of years, including very recent Administrations, have found it quite unnecessary to include any wording of this kind.
We want to know, and we have not heard from hon. Members opposite, of any fresh reason why this wording should be included. We are driven to the conclusion that they have suddenly become doubtful about the attitude of mind and the discretionary power of the local authorities. So far from recent events encouraging them to take a less jaundiced view of local authorities, they seem to have done the opposite. We are placed in the peculiar position of defending the new changes in local authorities and assuring hon. Members opposite that this does not affect our regard for local authorities generally, as democratic bodies who ought to be allowed reasonable discretion in matters of this sort which are essentially local matters.

Mr. Alpass: They cannot trust their own Tory councillors.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That is what it seems to amount to. Only recently in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, it was not regarded as necessary to make a provision of this kind for appeal from the local authority to the court, and it is rather extraordinary that we should be asked to include it now, with no suggestion of any cases cropping up where local authorities have acted unreasonably in this way. This might act in quite an opposite sense from the one in which hon. Members opposite wish it to act. It might prove a deterrent to local authorities using the discretionary power which is in their hands, and I would not assume hon. Members opposite would wish that to be the case.

Mr. Walker-Smith: How does the Parliamentary Secretary expect that that would work out in practice? I did not quite follow the last point he made that


the incorporation of these words would have an adverse effect upon people whose property was compulsorily acquired. Will he elaborate that?

Mr. Blenkinsop: It merely means that hon. Members opposite are suggesting there would be a challenge to the courts on the decision of local authorities, instead of leaving in the hands of local authorities the discretion whether or not they shall make a payment in these cases.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With great respect, I did try to indicate that in my view that would not be the result. It will be within the recollection of the hon. Gentleman that I suggested that the word "may" in statutes can, by nice graduation, shade off into "shall," and that this would in effect be one of those cases.

Mr. Blenkinsop: However that may be, clearly it still is the case that we have before us the decision of hon. Members opposite that they have no real faith in the local authorities carrying out their work in a reasonable way. So far we have heard of no cases of that kind, and so far as we know they have carried out exactly similar powers perfectly to the satisfaction of their people throughout the past years. We have heard no argument for altering the wording of the Bill which has been put before the House, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will withdraw their Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The technique of the Minister is employed with not quite so much success by the Parliamentary Secretary. That technique, with which we are familiar, is to take a small point and blow it up into a gigantic bubble, fill it with many-coloured smoke, and say how unreasonable are the Opposition to bring forward a case of this kind. Put forward with the fire and vehemence of the Minister, it is an engaging performance and one which we all enjoy, but I do not think it is intended to be a serious argument. The Parliamentary Secretary is perhaps following a dangerous precedent if he departs from his own admirable expository style into these merely inflationary walks of argument. When he said that the Amendment showed that we had no confidence whatever in the discretion of local authorities, and then proceeded to build up his argument upon that, he really was somewhat exaggerating his own argument, and not

in any way representing the most reasonable proposal which has been put forward. We do not intend to detain the House at any length, but this is a point on which the Government are clearly continuing a course which, in its mere increased application, is already bringing about a new position——

Mr. Blenkinsop: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I ask how are we creating new circumstances when in point of fact we are continuing a practice that he and his right hon. Friends have always adopted?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I, simply in passing, mention the very difficult situation in which the Minister of Town and Country Planning has found himself in regard to the dispossessing of certain individuals from sites in new towns. Elsewhere, the scale of the dispossession and evacuation of the citizens is much greater than has ever taken place before. The rate at which the Government are claiming the property of the individual is very much greater than ever before. The policy on which the Government are acting is the policy that the rights of the individual should not be considered against the rights of the community—at any rate that they should be less considered than they have been before. I do not think the Minister will object to that. It is the grammar of his creed.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I most certainly do object. I think it is fantastic that in discussing this Clause a local democratically-elected body is now to be regarded as a body without any sort of proper representation of the feelings of people locally. It is quite fantastic.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Well, I shall take up the Parliamentary Secretary on that single point. I will take the local authority within whose jurisdiction we are now living—that is, the London County Council—and take as an example the clearances on the South bank which will have to be carried out and the moving of a house, or indeed a trade or business, which may very reasonably have to be carried out there. While I would not rub a raw patch on the political conscience of the Parliamentary Secretary by referring to the way in which a majority was obtained upon that local authority, I certainly would not


suggest it was democratically obtained, though I do not suppose he will contend that. I will merely say that it shades off, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said, into the difference between "may" and "shall"; so indeed there is a very fine line between the point at which democratic sanction was obtained and the point at which democratic sanction was wrenched from the verdict of the electorate.
The difficulty of the small man against the great organisation is an increasing difficulty. Therefore, it is more desirable than less to make a safeguard. If the House should decide otherwise then that is the decision of the House, and the House must stand by their decision; but we say it is right and proper that the House should have the opportunity this afternoon of pronouncing upon this point, and on this suggestion that in the case of

a man displaced from his house under this part of the Act, a reasonable allowance should be paid to him towards his expenses of removing; and that any claim for reasonable allowance should be paid towards the loss that the man will sustain:
by reason of the disturbance of his trade or business consequent on his having to quit the house or building.…
not because there is anything the matter with the house or building, but for the convenience of the community, and that the local authority should not be the sole judge in its own case. Such is the case which we thing can reasonably be brought before the House of Commons. Such is the case which we have brought before it now, and such is the case upon which we ask the House to come to a decision.

Question put, "That 'such' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 109.

Division No. 154.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Albu, A. H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Deer, G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Alpass, J. H.
Dodds, N. N.
Keenan, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Dumpleton, C. W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Ayles, W. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinley, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Kirby, B. V.


Balfour, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Barstow, P. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Levy, B. W.


Barton, C.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Battley, J. R.
Ewart, R.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fairhurst, F.
Lipton, Lt -Col M.


Berry, H.
Farthing, W. J.
Longden, F.


Beswick, F.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lyne, A. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McAdam, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Foot, M. M.
McAllister, G.


Binns, J.
Forman, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.


Blackburn, A. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McGhee, H. G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mack, J. D.


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Goodrich, H. E.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McLeavy, F.


Bramall, E. A.
Grey, C. F.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gunter, R. J.
Mellish, R. J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Guy, W. H.
Messer, F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hale, Leslie
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mitchison, G. R.


Burden, T. W.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Monslow, W.


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Harrison, J.
Murray, J. D.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Naylor, T. E.


Champion, A. J.
Haworth, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Holman, P.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Cobb, F. A.
Homes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)


Cocks, F. S.
Horabin, T. L.
O'Brien, T.


Collindridge, F.
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Oliver, G. H.


Collins, V. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Earing, W.)
Orbach, M.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Parker, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parkin, B. T.


Daggar, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Daines, P.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Janner, B.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.




Popplewell, E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Weitzman, D.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Stokes, R. R.
West, D. G.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Pritt, D. N.
Stross, Dr. B.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Proctor, W. T.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ranger, J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Reeves, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Titterington, M. F.
Wills Mrs. Rt. Hon. J.


Sharp, Granville
Tolley, L.
Wise, Major F. J.


Shurmer, P.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, W.


Skinnard, F. W.
Walkden, E.
Yates, V. F.


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Walker, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Snow, J. W.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)



Sorensen, R. W.
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Watkins, T. E.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Sparks, J. A.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Pickthorn, K.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baxter, A. B.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R.


Birch, Nigel
Hope, Lord J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Boothby, R.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Kendall, W. D.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Langford-Holl, J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butcher, H. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Byers, Frank
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Carson, E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Channon, H.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Clifton-Brown, Lt-Col G.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Cole, T. L.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Teeling, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


De la Bère, R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Drewe, C.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Walker-Smith, D.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mellor, Sir J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Duthie, W. S.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Eccles, D. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fox, Sir G.
Nicholson, G.



Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Noble, Comdr A. H. P.
Major Conant and


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Odey, G. W.
Colonel Wheatley.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Clause 7.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE BOARD AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES.)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise a local authority to permit any person to use any such facilities for the purposes of carrying on a business.
We had a considerable discussion about laundry services during the Committee stage, and the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that the Minister undertook to look into the point covered by

this Amendment. Under this Clause local authorities have very wide powers to provide laundry facilities for tenants on their housing estates. What is more, under this Bill the tenants will be a very wide cross-section of the community, because this Measure deals with houses up to the value £5,000.
Quite apart from the question of whether or not it is the proper function of local authorities to provide laundry services to a large section of the community at the expense of the ratepayers, we seek in this Amendment to prevent


two possible and obvious abuses. One is where the tenant of a council estate takes in washing from those who do not live on the council estate at all and makes a charge for that service, and the other is to avoid the possibility of any local authority setting up a laundry service on a scale much larger than is necessary to provide for the tenants of its own housing estates, and thereby entering into unfair competition with existing laundry companies. We have put down this Amendment to prevent any such facilities being used for the purpose of carrying on business.

Mr. Basil Nield: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: There is in this case no division between us as to the object of the Bill. We are quite clear that we do not wish the facilities that may be provided under this Measure to be used other than for those who are resident on a council estate or a council block of flats, for whom it was intended. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend when we were discussing this in Committee, there is already power for local authorities to provide wash-houses for the general use of people living in the town or in the area of the local authority. We do not see that there is any real danger here of the sort of abuse about which the hon. Member seems to be worried.
Moreover, we are concerned that the Amendment may indeed prevent a local authority from making an agreement with some laundry firm to carry out the laundry services for a particular block of flats or estate of houses, which I imagine would be the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is not essential for the local authority to provide these laundry services itself, and, if it wishes, it can enter into an agreement with outside firms to do the work on behalf of the local authority. We rather fear that the Amendment might endanger a proposal of that kind, and, after looking at this very carefully, we do not feel that there will be any great advantage to be gained by altering the wording of the Clause. We believe that we can rely upon local authorities, with such instructions as may go out from the Minister, to operate it for the benefit of the tenants of the houses for whom it was intended

and for whom we believe this Clause clearly intends that it should be provided.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Could the Minister indicate what machinery he proposes to create in order to confine the use of these wash-houses to the people for whom they are intended in the Bill? It seems to me that this is part of the scheme of this Administration to extend municipal trading, and we should like to know precisely how the local authority can keep control of the wash-houses or laundry so that these facilities apply only to particular groups of people or apartments. I do not like this Clause, because I think all traders in our towns should have the fullest measure of protection in this House, and I should therefore like to be assured that this is not the thin end of the wedge of municipal trading in our larger towns.

6.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) has asked the Minister for a further assurance. During the Committee stage the Minister indicated that this was not a Bill for the extension of municipal trading, whether he wished it to be or not—and on that point there is division between the two sides of the House—but a Housing Bill, and it was only in so far as these facilities were incidental to housing that they came within the scope of the Bill. I think we can accept the assurance of the Minister. Both sides of the House are at one here, that there is no desire to extend municipal trading and that the Bill does not in fact provide any further facilities for it.
I should like, however, to refer to the actual words which the Minister used in Committee, when he said:
I should like to have a look at the statutes again.
He said he would examine them, and later on, he said:
We shall, of course, call the attention of local authorities to this facility and also to the views that have been expressed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 12th April, 1949; c. 89–91.]
We were trying to see whether it would not be possible to get something put in the statute, but I understand that the Minister has assured us that it would not be possible in the statute to provide for the safeguard which we seek here; namely, that these facilities should not be operated by somebody else as a business.

Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman want to prevent that? I should have thought myself that he and his hon. Friends are now running in opposite directions. It is not possible under this Bill for a local authority to provide laundry services for anybody except their own tenants. That is made perfectly clear. By the Amendment it would be impossible for the local authority to make a contract, but it might be highly desirable for a local authority to make a contract with a private contractor because the number of houses owned by that authority might not be sufficient to enable a laundry to be viable. If the laundry for the local authority's own houses were attached to a private laundry system, both could become viable, and therefore the local authority could make a contract with a contractor to provide the laundry facilities for its tenants. I should not imagine that anybody would now deny the local authority the opportunity of making a contract with a private contractor to provide laundry facilities. I do not believe that this was the intention in the minds of those who have put forward this Amendment but that would be the effect of it, and I do not imagine that anybody would want to accomplish that object.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was about to come to the second argument; I was dealing with the first point, which the Minister says is now clear. It was not so clear during the Committee stage, however——

Mr. Bevan: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I might read the words the Minister used, they were these:
I am quite clear that all this does is to enable the local authority to provide laundry facilities for its own tenants and not to carry on a general laundry business, although I should like to have a look at the statutes again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 12th April, 1949; c. 89.]
When doubt, even of the most modest kind, arises in the Minister's mind, it is an indication that it may well arise in the minds of others also. I was dealing with the first point, on which the Minister said he would have a look at the statute again. Having done that, he has assured us, as the responsible Minister in charge of this legislation, that he has assured himself that the Clause does not enable the local

authority to do more than provide laundry facilities for its own tenants. On that assurance, it would naturally be undesirable for us to press the Minister, although in most of these things one would prefer to see it written into the Bill.
As to the Minister's second point, which was also made by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the words of the Amendment might prevent a local authority from making an agreement with an outside firm, I should not have thought that these words could have borne that interpretation, though, like the Minister, I should be very glad to look into the wording again. He brings to our notice a point which we are bound to take into consideration. It is certainly not the desire of any of us in any part of the House to prevent a local authority from making use of the facilities of a private firm if it so desired. If the Minister indicates that there is even the slightest danger of that we should certainly not wish to press this to a Division. Having received the assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, first, that the Clause does not bring about the danger against which we seek to safeguard, and, secondly, that the words we have put on the Order Paper might bring an unlooked-for result, I think that my hon. Friend might be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: In view of the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO SELL FURNITURE TO PERSONS HOUSED BY, OR BY ARRANGEMENT WITH, THEM.)

Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, to leave out Clause 8.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have been forced to this action because of what we considered the unreasonable attitude adopted by the Minister when the question of the sale of furniture by local authorities was discussed in Standing Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, during the Second Reading Debate we took the view that as long as proper financial safeguards were taken by local authorities to see that, if they went into this sort of business, they were in fact self-supporting,


and that there would be no loss, private enterprise traders, with all their experience, and so on, could compete efficiently under those terms, and we raised no objection.
In Standing Committee we asked the Minister, in the first place, to impose the period of one year as being the time by which a local authority should be able, having started its business, to run it on a profitable basis. When the Minister felt that he was not able to agree to that suggestion—he thought that a year was too short a period—we said that we were quite willing to extend the period, if necessary, to two or three years. Once again the Minister refused to define what he considered a reasonable time during which a local authority should learn the business of selling furniture.
My hon. Friends would be perfectly willing to withdraw this Amendment if the Minister were now prepared to state a definite time in which he considered a local authority should be allowed to conduct this sort of business at a loss. We are left with the impression that the Minister is intentionally leaving this matter vague in order that local authorities may be able to continue from year to year to run a highly technical business at a loss without any sanction falling on them from his Ministry or Parliament that their accounts should be properly balanced. We think it is wrong that such trading should be carried out at the expense of the ratepayers of a particular local authority. In Standing Committee, the Minister suggested that it was likely he would issue a circular indicating in broad outline, that he wished that the accounts of a local authority who took up the selling of furniture should be properly balanced, and that the business should be self-supporting.
Just imagine the unfairness of allowing a local authority to continue to run a business at a loss for an unspecified period of years while, during that time, it is probably making bankrupt, unsubsidised private enterprise businesses in the same locality. That cannot be just, and it is because we feel that we must, in justice to the private trader who has no blank cheque on the local rates, insist that in this Bill a definite term of years is inserted by which it will be necessary

for a local authority to publish its funds and to show that it is conducting its business on a sound and economic basis.
It is only right, in speaking in this connection, that we should make it clear that the furniture business is not something which can be run by amateurs. It is a business which has grown up in the last few years into a vast complicated organisation where the public, owing to the efforts and the ingenuity of the various firms in that industry, are allowed a wide and varied choice of furniture from which to select. It is an industry which has a selling organisation able to cope with the considerable difficulties of storage, and so on; it is a business allowing various terms of credit, and one which must require good management of a technical sort.
All those are difficulties which will have to be faced by a local authority if it takes advantage of the provisions which the Minister has provided under this Clause. Because of those difficulties, the Minister may say that he is prepared to give them six, seven or eight years in which to learn the business which is at present being run by private enterprise. I do not think that the House of Commons should take that attitude; it is not playing fair with the private enterprise concerns. I do not think it right, that for six, seven or eight years the ratepayers should pay out of the general rate considerable losses in order that a certain department within a local authority may learn how to run the furniture business. That is something on which it is in no way justifiable that public money should be spent.
As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to give us in terms of years what he considers a reasonable time during which a local authority should be allowed to make mistakes. He dismissed, in his usual picturesque and charming fashion, our suggestion of one year. He said that we were being too rigid by sticking to the seasons of the year, and that he wished to have some different method. I do not know whether he intends to alter the whole of the accounting methods of this country. He is full of energy and perhaps he has some valuable contributions to make on that score, but I suggest that without some guarantee from the Minister that local authorities who take up this right to sell


furniture to people in their area will be set some sort of time limit within which to run their business efficiently, we have no right to give them a blank cheque on the rates with which to pay for their losses. Unless we get that assurance I am certain that my hon. Friends will have no hesitation in pressing this Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am concerned at the danger to the small trader of the continued invasion by municipal authorities on his rights and privileges as a citizen. In the past the small traders have made a valuable contribution to every phase of our social life, and it is a great blunder in statesmanship on the part of the Minister in trying more and more to permeate the organisation of business by introducing municipal trading on every conceivable occasion. The local authorities are invited to become manufacturers and salesmen of furniture for the equipment of houses built by local authorities. That means the dislocation of a very important and highly technical business which, so far, has been carried on with increasing vigour and success by private manufacturers and distributors of furniture. Notwithstanding his many commendable eccentricities, the right hon. Gentleman still has the quality of common sense, and I beg him not to inflict a further disability on this trading community.

Mr. Bevan: I have been highly amused listening to the two hon. Members. I was very interested to see how they would get themselves out of the very obvious embarrassment which has almost overwhelmed them. Perhaps it is not true to say that about the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), because it was perfectly clear what he wanted to do. What he wanted to do was to prevent the local authorities from selling furniture to the tenants; whereas the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), having been on the Committee, knew his position was much more difficult than that. He had to find an excuse to refuse local authorities the power to sell furniture.
What has happened is that the Opposition have got themselves into trouble with the Property Owners Protection Society. They have not been sufficiently vigilant on the Committee, and when the

hon. Member said, "We are forced to take this stand," I agree; I am sure they are forced to take it. It is a most embarrassing situation for them. If hon. Members will look at the proceedings on Second Reading, they will realise what a delightful and ironic difficulty the Opposition are now in. I said:
The existing law enables a local authority to hire out furniture but not to sell it. I am quite sure that I shall have the Opposition with me here when I say that it ought to be possible for the local authorities to enable the tenants to become possessors of the furniture. This is my contribution towards a property-owning democracy. I am sure that I shall have the enthusiastic support of the Opposition in enabling the public authority to sell furniture.
Then the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said:
The right hon. Gentleman is learning. Come along.
Well, I came along. Then I said.
I am indeed glad to have this enthusiastic support for substitution for private enterprise in the sale of furniture. I hope that the Opposition will not succumb to any Lobby pressure from any source whatever in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2127–8.]
I anticipated that perhaps they had allowed themselves to be seduced by my blandishments, and that they would be rebuked by those who are so busy contributing to the party chest of the Opposition, because that is what is really wrong here. They are now suggesting that the reason why they will not agree to the principle is that we have not laid down for the local authority a limitation from which private enterprise is exempt. Nobody on the opposite side of the House will suggest a term of years at the expiry of which a private firm should learn the business of selling furniture. The fact is that it is not possible at the moment to lay down what is the period during which a local authority or any firm shall be asked to decide whether it has, in fact, made a success or a failure of the business.
I should like to tell hon. Members in all quarters of the House that the business of selling furniture is simple compared with the business of hiring furniture. The really complicated thing in the furniture world is hiring furniture, not selling it. It is the simplest business in the world to sell things. All one does is to buy something, stand between that and the customer who wants it and charge a profit.


Hiring furniture, on the other hand, is a very complicated business—a very complicated law which involves all kinds of psychological considerations.
The Opposition are leaving alone the complicated business of hiring, but they wish to refuse local authorities the right to sell, because they do not want to alter the existing law. They do not want to enable the persons to whom furniture is hired to become the possessors of that furniture. The reason why they do not want it is because, as the hon. Member for Moseley said, it would be competing with private enterprise and preventing them from making a profit. That is a very simple, crude and understandable attitude, but the hon. Member did not realise the difficulties of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment.
It really is not good enough for the Opposition to take this line at this late stage. I know they will take it because they are compelled to take it, but they must now take it in the light of day so that everybody can see what they are doing.

Sir P. Hannon: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but in my view it is far more important from the point of view of the ratepayers of Birmingham to sell at a small profit than to be taxed for losses made by the local authority.

Mr. Bevan: I am coming to the question of loss in a moment. This is not a duty imposed upon local authorities; it is permissive. A local authority can do it, or it need not do it. The Opposition are taking steps to see, so far as they possibly can, that some of the local authorities are so composed that they will not want to do it. If the local authority makes a loss the ratepayers will know all about it. The accounts are published and the councillors will have to justify themselves to the citizens. That is perfectly reasonable. I agree that it would not be a good thing if over a long period of years the supply of furniture was subsidised from the rates. That would be unreasonable, but it might be reasonable over a short period until the local authority had had long enough to be able to balance its accounts and take the rough with the smooth. This is a matter for the local citizens to decide.
Why must the Opposition always try to deny functions to the local authorities?

Why do they not leave the local authorities the power to decide for themselves?

Sir P. Hannon: We do not wish to deny them their legitimate functions.

Mr. Bevan: This is legitimate. Why on earth this insistence on the part of the Opposition that the tenants of council houses should not become the owners of their own chairs, cupboards, tables and other things? I do not understand it. I hope, therefore, that even at this late hour hon. Members opposite will repent and march along as happily as they were before their misfortunes were discovered by their supporters.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure we all welcome the right hon. Gentleman back from an interlude of discussion which, whatever it was, has obviously freshened his power of argument and enlarged his stock of images. Of course, the Minister is in a very embarrassing position. Like ourselves, so he has just confessed, he desires that local authorities should not subsidise the sale of furniture out of the rates and he is with us in the argument which we have advanced, but it is necessary, in the pursuit of his peculiar ideological convictions, that he should conceal it as far as possible. Indeed, he hedged about that eminently satisfactory admission with a statement that it was not necessary at the present moment, no doubt thinking of the recent remarkable dictum of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nationalised industries ought not to make profits.
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, bound to maintain his very peculiar ideas about trade, which are that the way to trade, the way to sell something, is to acquire an object, stand between it and its potential purchaser and charge toll. That is what he says. It certainly enables those of us on this side of the House to understand the difficulties in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other people promoting the export drive stand when dealing with colleagues who take up such a peculiar position. I can imagine that their difficulty with foreign trade is very great indeed; having the right hon. Gentleman standing between a foreign purchaser and something he desires to purchase, with the object of charging toll, might well deter a purchaser and, no doubt, has deterred a great many.

Mr. Bevan: As we are selling much more than 50 per cent. above what we were selling before the war, obviously my principle is more effective in selling goods than is that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should have thought that fact was a remarkable testimony to the shortage of supply in the world. The reminders which are continually made to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sellers' market is coming to an end indicate that it is more the course of world events than the success of the right hon. Gentleman's policy of trade which is responsible for the increase in our exports. Certainly I have never heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopt that attitude towards trade and bring it forward as one which was most likely to produce the further expansion—the great and necessary further expansion—in our export trade.
The fact is that the Minister says local authorities should not use the furniture trade as a method whereby furniture is sold below an economic return. But he says it is impossible to lay down any limitation of any period in which this fact can be determined. It is exactly that point which, repeated upstairs in Committee and again upon the Floor of the House, made it necessary for us to suggest that in that case it would be better that they did not embark upon the trade at all. That seems very reasonable to us. There is no difference between private enterprise in this case and the local authority—no difference, except, of course, that the local authority is working with our money and private enterprise is working with its own. If a firm supplying furniture goes on supplying it below an economic rate, the firm goes into liquidation; but if a local authority goes on supplying below the economic rate, it charges the loss to the general rate, to the general citizen. There seems to us—but not to the Minister—to be a very fundamental kind of distinction. It seems to us to bring a sharp sanction upon uneconomic supply in the case of private enterprise which does not exist in the case of the collective enterprise which the Minister is recommending this afternoon.
We therefore stand most firmly on the proposal which we have put forward. The Minister, whose mind seems to be of a

suspicious nature, thinks this is due to pressure by our supporters. In fact, we have indicated all the way through, on Second Reading of this Bill and upstairs in Committee, what was our view. It was on Second Reading and not in Committee upstairs, by the way, that the Minister declared his conversion to the principle of a property-owning democracy. He withdrew from that conversion a little as the Debate went on and he has, indeed, withdrawn from it very considerably just now. But on this matter my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) said clearly and definitely that it was only if the property were to be supplied on due economic conditions that we would agree to it and he said there was no reason why the authorities should not sell furniture at the proper economic rate to people wishing to buy.
We made that quite clear on the Second Reading of the Bill and in Committee, but the Minister would not meet us at all on the point in Committee; he refused to insert any of the safeguards which we brought forward and it is because of that that we are now moving this Amendment, all the more so because during the Debate upstairs certain hon. Members indicated the strangest views about the sale of furniture. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish), whose local authority had engaged in this trade, said:
The furniture is paid for by the council and we get our money back by increasing the rent in agreement with the tenant; … the only problem we found was that there was the difficulty of people escaping overnight with some of the furniture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee C, 28th April, 1949; c. 111.]
That, of course, is one of the problems which does exist.

Mr. Bevan: That is private enterprise

6.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should have thought it was rather of a nature of removing the more equal distribution of properties, and equal distribution is a view which is strongly pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is on this side of the House that we bring forward the simple argument:
He who takes what isn't his'n,
When he's cotched is put in prison.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the other hand, say that under those conditions he is exalted to a high position in the


Government and given a job on the Coal Board.
The argument which we bring forward is the perfectly simple argument that it is highly injudicious to destroy by taxation a ratepayer who is providing an article in pursuit of some shadowy idea of the virtues of the municipality as against the citizen. The difficulties which the municipality discover, one of which is the difficulty of people levanting with their furniture, are precisely the difficulties discovered by private enterprise. The remedy of the municipality for it is the remedy which the trade unions have resented at all times and in all circumstances—the power of a property owner to put the screw on his tenant to make him purchase an article which the tenant might not otherwise wish to buy.
This method of raising the rent to obtain from the tenant payment for certain properties, which one has by the virtue of one's position as a property owner been able to push upon him, is the sort of thing which, in the Truck Acts, trade unions fought time and time again and on which they conducted many finally successful campaigns. The local authority is in an all-powerful position. Is it suggested that all this purchase would be done solely and entirely by voluntary co-operation between landlord and tenant. That is the sort of argument which hon. Gentlemen opposite would laugh to scorn if it were brought forward in the case of the private individual. I can imagine their attitude towards a private landlord who said, "I have thought of a splendid idea. I will make an arrangement with a furtniture firm and, if necessary, put pressure on my tenants to buy some furniture from this firm. Having the tenants in my houses I am then in a splendid position because I shall include the price of that furniture in the rent, putting the screw on to an indefinite extent." I can imagine what hon. Gentlemen opposite would say to that.

Mr. Bevan: This is the first time we have heard this one. In the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's search for an argument in the waste in which he is travelling, does he seriously suggest that a responsible local authority will use their power as a landlord to force the tenants to buy furniture from them? That is the kind of respect which an ex-Minister of

Health has for the local authorities of Great Britain.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: First of all, if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to devote the same amount of attention to our remarks on the Committee stage all the way through as that which he is now devoting to them, he would know that I advanced this argument on the Committee stage. Why should the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a landlord would put pressure on his tenant to purchase property owing to the——

Mr. Bevan: I will answer it at once. A Committee of both Houses is now considering the final stages of a Bill introduced by me a few months ago—and resisted by the Opposition—to prevent landlords forcing potential tenants to pay exorbitant sums for their furniture.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Precisely. The right hon. Gentleman shows the utmost distrust of any individual by himself and the utmost confidence in any individuals acting collectively. He is too naïve in these matters. Large groups of people have shown themselves in the past quite as tyrannical as individuals, and will so show themselves again. The principle of the argument the right hon. Gentleman is now putting forward is that it is perfectly safe for a local authority to do so because it can recoup itself by raising the rent; and that is the very argument which he is trying to withstand in the case of the Measure affecting landlords and tenants of which he spoke.
The argument which we are bringing forward is that the local authority is in a dangerous position when it begins to sell articles of this kind to the tenant, and it is an argument which every remark of the right hon. Gentleman has gone far to strengthen today. The further argument that local authorities should, if they are embarking on this, carry on according to proper rules of accountancy, and should, within a period of time, make statements which would show clearly the position, is also an argument which, I think, he finds it difficult to rebut—all the more difficult since not only does he—or the Government—mention the term of three years in relation to civic restaurants, but the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) said that three years was the normal time over which hire purchase agreements should run.
Therefore, since it has been more than once stated that a period of three years should be sufficient, the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficult position indeed in resisting the argument we have brought forward, and in maintaining his. Since he has brought forward no argument to justify the contention he advances that local authorities in this matter are to be allowed to continue indefinitely in making a loss, and since he is not going to try to bring forward

any provision specifying the period in which they have to account to the electors, naturally we have no recourse left to us but to do our best to convince the House by weight of numbers, and that we shall proceed to try to do.

Question put, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 210 Noes, 100.

Division No. 155.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Murray, J. D.


Albu, A. H.
Foot, M. M.
Naylor, T. E.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Forman, J. C.
Neal, H. (Clay cross)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Alpass, J. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Attewell, H. C.
Goodrich, H. E.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)


Austin, H. Lewis
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Oldfield, W. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.


Ayles, W. H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Orbach, M.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Balfour, A.
Gunter, R. J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Guy, W. H.
Parker, J.


Barstow, P. G.
Hale, Leslie
Parkin, B. T.


Barton, C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Battley, J. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hardy, E. A.
Pearson, A.


Berry, H.
Harrison, J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Beswick, F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Popplewell, E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Haworth, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Binns, J.
Harbison, Miss M.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Blackburn, A. R.
Holman, P.
Pritt, D. N.


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Reeves, J.


Boardman, H.
Horabin, T. L.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bottemley, A. G.
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hughe, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bramall, E. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Royle, C.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Sharp, Granville


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shurmer, P.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Janner, B.
Simmons, C. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Skinnard, F. W.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Snow, J. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Keenan, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenyon, C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cobb, F. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Cocks, F. S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Stokes, R. R.


Collick, P.
Kinley, J.
Stross, Dr. B.


Collindridge, F.
Kirby, B. V.
Sylvester, G. O.


Collins, V. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Symonds, A. L.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Daines, P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, D. E. (Aherdare)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lonsden, F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Davies, Emest (Enfield)
Lyne, A. W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
McAdam, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McAllister, G.
Titterington, M. F.


Deer, G.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Tolley, L.


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mack, J. D.
Viant, S. P.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Walkden, E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Walker, G. H.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Warbey, W. N.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Messer, F.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Weitzman, D.


Ewart, R.
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Fairhurst, F.
Monslow, W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Farthing, W. J.
Moody, A. S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.




Wilkins, W. A.
Willis, E.
Yates, V. F.


Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Wise, Major F. J.



Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Wyatt, W.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Eccles, D. M.
Odey, G. W.


Astor, Hon. M.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. O. (Pollok)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, R. V.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boothby, R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Renton, D.


Bower, R.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bower, N.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. Glasgow C.)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Kendall, W. D.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butler, Rt. Hn, R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Byers, Frank
Langford-Holt, J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Cot. M.


Chatlen, C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Studholme, H. G.


Channon, H.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Low, A. R. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Touche, G. C.


Cole, T. L.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Turton, R. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Walker-Smith, D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Darting, Sir W. Y.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


De la Bère, R.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mellor, Sir J.



Donner, P. W.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Drewe, C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Commander Agnew and


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Colonel Wheatley.


Duthie, W. S.
Nield, B. (Chester)

Clause 22.—(CONDITIONS TO BE OBSERVED WITH RESPECT TO DWELLINGS.)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move in page 16, line 44, to leave out from first "the," to "or," and insert "owner."
This Amendment is put down because of the assurance which the Minister gave on Committee stage that he would deal with this point. As the Clause is drafted any dwelling which is receiving an improvement grant would have at all times to be occupied either by the applicant for the improvement grant or by a member of his family or by the tenant of the house in question. We feel that it would be unfair to confine this to a member of the family and for that reason we have put down the Amendment. Is there any particular reason why, if the original applicant for the grant had left the house to one of his kith or kin or had even sold the house, the benefit of the improvement grant should not pass to the subsequent purchaser if the house fell vacant in the meantime? There appears to be no valid reason why the purchaser of the improved

house from the original applicant for the grant should not enjoy all the facilities which the original applicant enjoyed. As the Clause stands, it draws a quite unfair distinction between the two. For those reasons we wish to insert the word "owner" to cover either the owner by will or the owner by purchasing. The Minister, in a subsequent Amendment, has made it more restrictive by covering only the person to whom the property was bequeathed.

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While in the majority of cases the word "owner" and "applicant" would in fact be synonymous, there would be a series of categories of different types of owner, for example, fee simple, 99 years' lease and a whole variety of owners whom we feel it would be unwise to include in the Bill. This is in fact a small point, but we think that we must retain the word "applicant," otherwise there would be no clear definition of the person.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The point at issue is that "owner" could be the man who purchased the house from the original owner who made the application. It is not confined to the person to whom he bequeaths his house by his will. Why should the purchaser of the house for which an improvement grant has been obtained be any less better off than the applicant?

Mr. Bevan: We are dealing here with the occupier. Since the house is rented we do not mind who buys or sells the house. The point is that the owner or his relatives are going to be in occupation of the house and it is necessary to safeguard ourselves. In other parts of the Bill, it is made clear that where the house is sold and is not going to be rented then, of course, the development grant must be repaid.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is rather an intricate point, and I think that it might repay a little further study. What we are afraid of is that it may arise that on some occasion the whole grant has to be repaid, and the whole process thereby slowed up. As the Minister says, the point is that the house should be let and kept available for letting, and the person who is the actual owner of the house is, to the Minister, a secondary point. So it is to us. What we fear is that the Clause does not exactly carry that out and that unless the owner was the original owner of the grant the conditions of this legislation would not apply.

Mr. Bevan: I see the point made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I will certainly look at it again. I am quite clear in my mind that if there were a succession of owners it would not matter and would not affect the position of the grant so long as the house was let at the controlled rent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On the undertaking that the Minister will look at this matter again, we may, I think, be satisfied. I am not sure that the words of the Clause could be held to mean what the Minister has said, that even though there was a succession of owners, so long as the house was kept available for letting, the conditions of the Act would continue to apply. That is a point which we desire to clarify, and as the Minister has undertaken to clarify it, and we accept

his assurance that it is his desire that, if the Clause does not mean that, words shall be inserted to make it so read, I think that my hon. Friend may find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I am perfectly prepared to withdraw the Amendment. As the Clause is now drafted it reads:
the dwelling shall, at all times at which it is not occupied by the applicant for the improvement grant.…
The applicant for the improvement grant clearly means the man or woman who made the original application and not someone to whom that individual bequeathed the dwelling or sold it.

Mr. Bevan: There are other sections in the Clause.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: In view of the assurance which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 16, line 45, after "family," to insert:
or a person to whom the interest of the applicant in the dwelling has been devised by him.
This is an Amendment to carry out a promise made by my right hon. Friend in Committee. Where the owner who has received a grant under the Bill leaves a reconditioned or improved house by will, the person to whom the house is left would, under the Bill as it stands, have to repay the grant. My right hon. Friend agrees that in that case repayment should not be required, and this provision is made by the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We welcome these words and would be glad if they were inserted in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 16, line 45, after "family" to insert "either (1)";"

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendment: in page 17, line 3, at the end, insert:
or
(ii) be occupied under a contract of service.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think they could be taken together, because we do not wish to delay the House. This is the first time that either the House or the Committee has had the opportunity of deciding sharply upon the issue whether a dwelling occupied in virtue of a contract of service should qualify for the improvement grant. The arguments which took place in a somewhat ragged fashion in Committee on various subpoints—such as whether a grant or a loan should be made, and later on whether it was possible to devise some code of conduct, such as a three months' notice to deal with the question of summary ejectment—never brought us sharply to the simple point: should a service cottage be able to come in all respects under the conditions of the Bill?
There is a conflict of opinion between the two sides which must be faced. Hon. Members opposite say that the conditions of the service cottage are so advantageous—I wish to state the position as fairly as I can—to the owner that anyone who has such a property should not be granted any form of public money to improve that dwelling. Our contention, quite shortly, is that, as the improvement will go to the tenant or the person who is in the cottage it is quite wrong for this House to withhold funds which would certainly improve the condition of the cottage, and therefore improve the condition of the person inhabiting the cottage. I hope the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) will agree that I have fairly stated the conflict between us, because at one point or another we have had long discussions on this.
I do not wish to delay the House, but I do wish to come to a decision upon this point, which is in some ways smaller than would warrant the enormous amount of heat and argument which has been directed upon it. Yet it is a point which is felt very keenly by both sides. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has more than once spoken very strongly on the matter, and on her consideration of the question has put in a minority report of a very uncompromising nature; indeed, so uncompromising that she suggested that for such rural houses on which improvements were made a full economic rent should be charged. That is a very strong statement, but I am afraid rather out of the

sphere of practical politics at the present time.
We on this side have felt the other viewpoint very strongly indeed, and considered that it would be a blot upon this Bill, which meets the general approval of the whole House—it was not divided against on Second Reading, and it will not be divided against on Third Reading—if it went through, removing those properties altogether from the operation of the Bill, for the Minister has emphasised more than once in relation to small cottage property in general that unless, not merely loan facilities but grant facilities are available such property will not be improved. Indeed, he vigorously opposed some of his hon. Friends who suggested that grants should not be made, and that the whole operation should be conducted by loans. The danger is—and the Minister said this also—that if these facilities are not granted in the case of ordinary cottage property, then ordinary cottage property will not be improved. He said, in effect: "I fear far more a shortage of applications than a rush of applications for the benefits of this Bill." That is what we fear, too.
It is not necessary to go over again the point as to the deserving nature of those who occupy these particular service cottages. They are admittedly the cream of the agricultural workers of this country; they are the key men of one kind or another—mostly stockmen, but some others as well. Therefore, both their competence and their necessity are admitted on all sides.
7.15 p.m.
I wish to ask the Minister to consider, apart from these arguments, the sort of position which he knows very well. Let him consider a small farm in Wales; let him consider his own country which, like my country, is more of a peasant country than the great nation of England, and where the mentality, the make-up of individuals is much more that to which one is accustomed in, say, French literature than in English literature, and where we can appreciate the intense application of the peasant to the soil, and the intense and corroding quarrels which often arise in those connections. Let him consider the position of a small farm in Wales whew a quarrel had arisen between the farmer and the shepherd or cowman; the nature


of the quarrel was such that it was impossible to bring it before either the agricultural executive committee or the courts; it was one of those personal things which only a peasant can fully appreciate and understand; the sort of thing which makes a man perfectly capable of cutting off his nose to spite his face thereafter. Imagine these people unwillingly locked in propinquity for months, and indeed for years thereafter, simply because some quarrel had arisen from which neither side was willing to withdraw. In so far as that quarrel continued it would hold up production, because inside that cottage would be living one who would not co-operate in the work of the farm, and without whose co-operation the work of the farm could not satisfactorily proceed.
The right hon. Gentleman has recognised that position more than once in the case of furnished lodgings—more particularly lodgings shared with another person. He has recognised that to lock these two people together indefinitely is certain to bring about the greatest possible disadvantages. That is rather in the nature of the case we are thinking of, although the sharing of such premises is much more intimate than the sharing of ordinary lodgings or furnished apartments. People can continue to inhabit the same house, it may be for years, without speaking a word to each other. Even man and wife have been known to continue in a house for a period of years without interchanging even the most perfunctory remarks. But a Welsh or a Scottish farmer and his cowman or shepherd cannot carry on for months or years without ordinarily friendly relations between them. The ultimate point of resolving these things is when the man is told that friendly relations are no longer possible, that a new man will have to be got and new quarters will have to be obtained.
We have not yet come to the end of this long argument, and I do suggest that the Minister should think again on the subject. Only recently, in the last few days, I again saw a resolution from some conference or other complaining that the question of the tied cottage had not been resolved. We recognise that on this issue the Minister is under pressure from his own supporters, and that more than one Labour Party conference has passed a resolution very strongly against the whole

idea of the tied cottage. But the Minister himself has pointed out that as far as he can see the tied cottage is indispensable for many years to come to the conduct of agriculture in our country. All he has said is that he does not find it possible for him ill present circumstances to make any grant towards the improvement of these cottages, that is to say that the person in a tied cottage is liable to all the disadvantages to which he is liable at present, and in addition liable to the disadvantage that his house may not be improved. That, we believe, is a deadlock which administration should not continue to contemplate. Our suggestion is that the tied cottage should also be made liable for grant under this legislation. We say that the onus of proof is on those who would refuse it, and for that reason we have set down the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: We have, indeed, discussed this in Committee at very great length. Every single combination, involution and permutation of the subject was considered, and eventually the Bill was restored to the House of Commons more or less as it went to the Committee in this respect. I should like to make it clear from the outset that we are not discussing tied cottages but improvement grants. Tied cottages are an entirely different matter. All we are saying in the Bill is this. It is not the Government that decides whether an improvement grant is to be paid on a service cottage but the owner of the cottage. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) put the cart before the horse, if I may use an agricultural metaphor appropriate to the circumstances.
All we have said is this. If the owner of a service cottage—I would rather speak of service cottages than tied cottages—says, "I am not going to apply for an improvement grant because if I do I have to create a tenancy, and if I do that I have no power of summary ejection," then at once we argue that the owner of a service cottage is putting the service cottage in the category of being a part of the hereditament, not of being a cottage in the ordinary sense of the term, and therefore not entitled to have an improvement grant upon it. He is saying that it is not a tenancy he wants but the right to put the occupant of


the service cottage on the road overnight. He argues that he needs the occupancy of the cottage to get the farm work done efficiently.
If he is arguing in that way, what he is saying is that, so essential is the occupancy of the cottage by a person whom he selects for the pursuit of farming that he cannot have a tenant in the cottage possessing tenant rights no matter how rudimentary. But if he says that, I must regard his building as part of his farm buildings and not therefore as a cottage, a house or residence that ought to attract grants in the ordinary way. I suggest with all respect that that logic is impregnable. It is not therefore the Government or the Bill that denies improvement to the service cottage, but the owner of the service cottage who will not improve the cottage under the conditions of this grant because he wishes to retain the power of summary ejectment.
It is perfectly true that upstairs the Opposition put down an Amendment suggesting this power of summary ejectment should be modified by a three-month period and that at the end of three months the power of ejectment should be restored without any proceedings in the courts. We argued in reply, and we still argue it today, that within two, three or four months at the outside a farmer can get possession of the cottage now. He can proceed to the county agricultural executive committee for a certificate. In other words, he has to prove his case before his peers. He has to prove it before a representative of the men, a farmer and another person. He has to show that it is in the interests of his business to have possession of the cottage, and if he gets a certificate he can then go to the county court and in most cases get an order.
As a general rule, therefore, the possession of these cottages for agricultural purposes can be obtained within two, three or four months. Where the period is longer than that, it ought to be longer than that, because there the judge will have arbitrated that more hardship will fall upon the occupant of the cottage than upon the farmer, and therefore the period should be longer during which the occupant can look around for alternative accommodation. I should have

thought that that is all a reasonable farmer would want. As a matter of fact, I have been told by many farmers that they do not want the power of summary ejectment, which is an arbitrary power they find too repugnant to exercise, and consequently they are prepared for some protection to be given to an occupant of a cottage.
Some of my hon. Friends argued that the farmer ought not to have the power to get an occupant out of a cottage at all unless alternative accommodation could be found. We have considered that right to be too substantial a denial of business efficiency to be permitted all over the country, because here we are speaking not only of agricultural but of all restricted tenancies in various parts of the country. It is quite easy to give an example of how embarrassing it would be. A local authority might employ a watchman over the sluice gates of a reservoir, and occupancy of a cottage in such an isolated place might be part of the work. If the watchman decided to give up his work, the local authority would be unable to find anyone at all, because the watchman could still sit in his cottage and the local authority would have to find alternative accommodation. There would be public hurt and public injury; this would be the exercise of an individual's right against the common good. That is why the Rent Restrictions Acts have always recognised the necessity of enabling people to get possession of houses where it is necessary for the carrying on of the business or profession.
The improvement grant cannot be paid in the case of a service cottage. There, I think, I am marching with enlightened opinion on both sides; the farmer who says, "All right, I will take the improvement grant because all I am losing is a right I do not want to exercise and I very rarely exercise. I am perfectly prepared to submit my case to the arbitration of my fellows."
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned one case which he did not finish. The case he had in mind is where it might be difficult for the farmer or owner of the house to make his case before the county agricultural executive committee because the relationship between the farmer and the occupant of the cottage might not be due to contractual considerations but to subjective and


emotional considerations. But not only could the farmer find the occupant of the cottage emotionally objectionable but the occupant could also find the farmer emotionally objectionable. The farm-worker could not get rid of the farmer. There is no reason why on these purely subjective grounds the farmer should be able to get rid of the farmworker.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: When all is said and done, the farmer is responsible for the running of the holding and is answerable to the county agricultural executive committee, which the worker is not.

Mr. Bevan: All the farmer would have to do in such a case would be to dismiss his worker and then go to the agricultural executive committee and get possession.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: On temperamental grounds?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is conjuring up a set of circumstances to make a case for which, on more general grounds, he and his hon. Friends have no case at all. I need hardly repeat the old adage, "Hard cases make bad law." I do not think that we can amend the whole of this Bill and expose thousands of agricultural workers to unnecessary hardship in order to deal with a few cases where emotional disturbance might arise out of physical propinquity. I think the case has been made abundantly for these provisions in the Bill which, I believe, will be welcomed by every enlightened landlord.

Mr. Baldwin: I am sorry to take up the time of the House but this is an extremely important matter, especially as it concerns agricultural districts. The Minister and Members on this side are so close together that it is a pity that we cannot bridge the gap. The Minister said that we had argued for a three months' tenancy and wanted summary ejection. I differ from that; I do not think that was argued at all. All we want is a reasonable opportunity to get possession of a cottage when a man gives up his job.

Mr. Bevan: I do not wish to misrepresent the situation, nor do I wish it to be misunderstood. What the Opposition wanted was that the improvement

grant should be paid upon a service cottage and that when a cottage had a grant of that sort the landlord, if he wished to get rid of the tenant, would have to give three months' notice, at the end of which the axe would fall.

Mr. Baldwin: I do not think that the words "summary ejection" were ever mentioned in the argument.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the difference is between the lawyer's use of the term "summary ejection" and the lay use of that term. The layman's idea is that it means throwing a man out overnight, neck and crop. The lawyer's point is that a man can recover possession of his property. The question whether it is done by violence or by any other means does not really arise in the legal connotation, although it does arise in the mind of the layman.

Mr. Bevan: The proposition was that the owner of a service cottage should give up a right in return for an improvement grant. That right was the right to turn out his tenant. In return for an improvement grant the landlord would say to the tenant, "Here is three months' notice," and all the owner would have to do would be to sit back. At the end of three months he could put the tenant out, as he could at the beginning, without any processes of law. His right of summary ejectment would be restored at the end of the three months.

Mr. Baldwin: Speaking on behalf of the best farmers, I can say that we do not want the right of summary ejection. What we want was well illustrated by the Minister's point about the night watchman. When the night watchman gives up his job he has to give up his cottage. Similarly, when the shepherd gives up his job he should give up his cottage, but should continue in it until he can get somewhere else to live. We want men to remain on farms, carrying on their work, until they can find other accommodation.

Mr. Bevan: That has nothing to do with what is now before the House. Ordinarily, the sensible workman, if he intended to leave his employment, would first look around for a house and then, when he had found it, would give notice to his employer. What the hon. Member wishes to achieve is, generally speaking, the case now.

Mr. Baldwin: We ask the Minister to protect us from the unreasonable workman; there is no difficulty with the reasonable workman. We want protection against the unreasonable workman who simply sits in his cottage and will not get another job. The gap between us is small. The Minister and the Minister of Agriculture both appreciate that we have to have service cottages. All we want is a means of protection, so that when a key man gives up his job he gives up his cottage. Farmers do not want to be left high and dry in the lambing season. I believe the position can be met, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has withstood the pressure from his own back benchers on this matter. Members opposite who delight in their prejudice against the landed estate owner will do a lot of harm to those who have to carry on farm work if they slightly hurt that landowner. It has been said that farm workers are in shackles. I do not believe that is true, but even if it is, the right hon. Gentleman should build council houses and give to men who feel that they are being intimidated, an opportunity of going into those houses. No farmer will take the risk of finding himself saddled with a man whom he cannot dismiss, and the cream of the farm workers will suffer because of the prejudice against the tied cottage.

Miss Jennie Lee: We have already been reminded that service cottages apply to other than farm workers—that there are railway cottages, miners' cottages, and the like. Why is it that as one after another Member has intervened in the discussion today the Debate has got right back to the farm? It is because the problem does not affect miners and railwaymen and others who are doing vital jobs and have to live near to their work. It does not affect them because they have powerful trade union protection. The mines and the railways are nationalised. In other words, opinion in industrial areas is such that we are comfortable in our minds. We are not afraid of abuse: we know that our people, collectively, can protect themselves. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said in Committee, and again today, that the same balance of power exists in the countryside, and that although there might be an unreasonable farmer and farm worker they cancelled each other out.
In the whole of Great Britain no widow of a poor miner could be thrown out of a colliery cottage even before the mines were nationalised. There was the powerful Miners' Union, and the men would not have tolerated that kind of behaviour. But that can happen in the English countryside. There are not a great number of ties, but in the countryside, if one is politically, economically, and socially weak, even although one is not victimised, not only a man, but his wife and children can have their nerves frayed by a feeling of insecurity.
The hon. Member shakes his head. At a recent election in my own constituency there was a farmer in a meeting who got up to ask the candidate how he earned his living. It was the whole atmosphere of the man which was suggestive. I am not saying that the hon. Member would behave that way, nor am I saying that that farmer was representative of the farming community, but we are not legislating here for kind and reasonable people. We are legislating for the special problem, which is a countryside problem. We are dealing with people who abuse their powers. I am still puzzled and astonished that the farmers of the countryside are not delighted that they cannot get public money unless they untie their cottages. It should be clearly understood that if they do untie their cottages and give the minimum protection, they will come into the scheme.
The Minister has only given us the minimum protection. He could not have given us less than he has done on this particular point. In fact, he has given us so little that I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Leominster, are not delighted that they can go back to the countryside and explain that there is no problem about this. All they have to explain is that if the service cottage is substandard, and if the employee is given a little bit of protection, then the owner comes within the provisions of the Bill. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. On the other hand, why should I say that I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, I would rather see it pressed to a Division, and then the Division Lobbies would show us where we stood in this respect.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: The Minister said that the main point of this


Amendment referred to improvement grants and was not a discussion on the merits or demerits of the service cottage system. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in a speech in Committee on this part of the Bill he referred to these agricultural cottages as pieces of social equipment, and something which, as far as possible, we should see were kept in a proper state. He was advancing the argument about pieces of social equipment against his hon. Friends who were asking that the grant should not be given when a service tenancy had been agreed to and entered into.
Also during his speech he commented that his logic was impeccable. I cannot see that I can understand the logic of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) that no grant should be given in a case where there is not 100 per cent. freedom from the tie or at least an offer of alternative accommodation. However, we have gone beyond that by the fact that the Minister says now that an improvement grant can be given in a case where possession can be obtained under the cottage certificate procedure, or by a certificate from the county agricultural executive committee. I do not think his logic is impeccable, but if it is, he should go a little further so that we can make a grant towards improving these pieces of social equipment wherever they are still in control of the landlord or under control of the agricultural committee.
7.45 p.m.
The Minister also said we wanted grants for cottages where the occupier could be thrown out on to the road overnight. He was fair enough later in his speech to remind the House that we moved an Amendment on the Committee stage to give an improvement grant only in the case of a cottage where agreement had been entered into by the occupier and the owner, and that three months' notice should be given. I was sorry that on that occasion the Minister could not accept the Amendment, because there is a genuine desire on both sides of the House, and between both parties in the industry to try to get some compromise on the question of these particular cottages. Here let me say that in spite of moving or supporting this Amendment many of us are appreciative of the effort that the Minister has made to meet us. There

were rumours before this Bill appeared that the service cottage and tenancy were going to be excluded altogether from the Measure.
The Minister has made a gesture to meet us in so far as a grant can be obtained if a tenancy is entered into and a certificate obtained from the county agricultural executive committee before possession can be gained. That will meet the vast majority of cases in the more populous parts of the country, but it does not meet the difficulty of the more remote parts, where less labour is employed on the farm, and where there are just one or two key men. It is important that the farmer should retain control of these particular cottages. The Minister says that that is just the sort of case where the county agricultural executive committee would give a certificate. My right hon. and gallant Friend has already mentioned the sort of personal difference which may arise in those cases and, unless the agricultural executive committee are going to allow a divorce for temperamental incompatibility, it is difficult to see how the farmer can hand over this particular responsibility and control over these tied cottages.

Mr. Sparks: Now that the farmers are doing so well and are in such a well-paid occupation, why cannot they themselves put their cottages in proper repair without seeking public funds?

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I do not think I need answer that, because we had a very long discussion on it on the Committee stage, where it was pointed out to the Minister that a very large gap exists between the case of any farm building work and improvement, and the rent which can be charged under the Rent Restriction Acts. Indeed, in the case of the service cottage no rent at all is charged. The whole object of this Bill is to try to bridge that gap, and encourage people to carry out this work, without levying too high rents upon the occupiers. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but we appreciate what the Minister has done to met us on this point, and I am only sorry that he could not come a little nearer so that this Bill would leave the House as a more or less agreed Measure on this particular point.

Mr. Alpass: I expected that we were going to have a full-dress Debate on the


question of the tied cottage. The Amendment from the opposite side of the House raises this question in its sharpest form. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) suggested that this Clause would be a blot on the Bill if it remained as drafted. It would be a much greater blot if the Amendment were accepted. I am pleased to note that the Minister has made a firm stand against the attempt by the Opposition to retain the power of summary ejection of agricultural workers. It is suggested by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that the Opposition want to protect the rights of the farmer against the unreasonable workman. We want to protect the rights of the workman against the unreasonable farmer. To suggest, as has been done in the Committee, that there should be a three months' interregnum or delay before this power of summary ejection operated is simply to beg the question. What would the life of the agricultural worker and of his family be during the three months when the notice was in suspension?
Something has been said—and I did not know that it was possible to introduce it—about the power of the farmer to get a certificate from the agricultural committee. That is a right which no other owner of property possesses. No one else can go to any committee and get a certificate which waives the condition that there shall be alternative accommodation provided before possession is granted to the owner. We shall very much resent it if this power still remains.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying what he has said. With a service occupancy, which is the arrangement which farmers generally have with their men, it is not necessary to get a certificate. Farmers can apply direct to the courts. The certificate is necessary when the farmer wants to bring into service occupancy a cottage which is let in some other way.

Mr. Alpass: For many years I was a member of a committee which made an inspection of cottages to ascertain whether a certificate should be granted. It may be said that I have exaggerated the extent to which certificates have been granted under that special provision. The number

last year was not 1,000, as I said, but 999. That is not a very great error. I hope that we shall show our determination to safeguard the rights and to protect liberties of the agricultural worker by refusing to continue this right of arbitrary ejection. I would remind the hon. Member for Leominster that although he himself would not operate this power in an unjust fashion there are many cases where farmers have gone to a house and turned the people out on to the verge without any notice whatever. It is the exercise of that unjust power which we are anxious shall not remain in the hands of anyone in the future. I hope that we shall show our very strong resentment against retaining this power of arbitrary ejection by defeating the Amendment, even if we have to go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: It is true that the Minister has gone some way to meet us, but I do not think I can say the same about the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass). I find it difficult to believe that the farming community in his part of the world are so different from the farming community anywhere else.

Mr. Alpass: I can supply the hon. Member with concrete cases.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The Minister said that it was for the owner to decide whether to untie his cottage and obtain the grant. That is technically true. The right hon. Gentleman has obliged the owner to decide but it is the tenant who suffers. The right hon. Gentleman will know that under the old Housing (Rural Workers) Act owners reconditioned their cottages either with no financial return to themselves where the maximum wage-deduction was already made, or with a very small return—namely the difference between the actual deduction and the maximum permitted.

Mr. Bevan: What the hon. Gentleman is really saying is that the landlord is prepared to do an injury to his tenant in order to retain a mediaeval right.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The right hon. Gentleman is doing an injury to a large number of occupants of tied cottages because of his political prejudices.

Mr. Alpass: Why are the agricultural workers overwhelmingly against continuance of the tied cottage system?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The answer to the hon. Member is that they are not. I do not know how many agricultural workers in this country are living in what are called tied cottages, but the Ridley Report put the number a few years ago at 200,000. There must, therefore, be a considerable number of houses of this category. It is true that the owner can get a grant by untying his cottage. The right hon. Gentleman says that all that the owner has to do if he wants possession of his cottage is to go to the county agricultural committee and get a certificate, but only 50 per cent. of applications for certificates are successful. There are certain cases in which the certificate procedure must be totally inappropriate.
We all know examples of a farm worker who is efficient in his job, but either quarrels violently with everybody on the farm or drinks too much. In those circumstances the agricultural committee could not be asked to allow a certificate. We know of circumstances in which the tenant of a tied house makes life so unbearable for everybody else on the farm that the other employees say to the farmer, "Either this man goes or we all go." There are circumstances which cannot be dealt with by the certificate procedure. The right hon. Gentleman very properly said in Committee that occupancy of a house was sometimes a necessary part of the efficient operation of an industry, and also of services like education, and railways. That is correct.
The Government are probably the largest owners of tied cottages in England. The right hon. Gentleman knows that very well. He himself is the owner of tied cottages, through the Ministry of Health. He has asked for powers whereby local authorities can earmark a particular house for the district nurse in any particular area. How can the district nurse operate in any area without living in a house? Of course, she cannot. That cottage is part and parcel of the "social equipment."

Mr. Bevan: It is not tied.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: If the district nurse gets married and leaves her job is she to be allowed to live in that house?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that what I have asked local authorities to do is to provide houses for the district nurse, and

that if she ceases to be the district nurse she is to be put out on the road? All I would ask is that the local authorities provide another house. That is all.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that public money should be spent on providing houses for district nurses, which everybody agrees are necessary, and if the nurse decides to give up nursing, can she still stay in the house earmarked for a district nurse?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will say that that applies to houses owned by the Forestry Commission and to those occupied by village constables.

Mr. Bevan: All the time hon. Members are arguing as though the matter before the House were the issue of tied cottages. It is no such thing. It is whether the improvement grants should be withheld from one type of cottage or another. The issue of tied cottages is not dealt with in the Bill and is not before the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I agree entirely with the Minister. The general question of tied cottages is not before the House. The question is the conditions under which an improvement grant will be made. I therefore hope that for that reason and others hon. Members will be good enough to be brief and to the point.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I was only trying to argue the reason why an improvement grant should be made in respect of tied houses. I do not think I am going any wider on that argument that did the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). That was the argument to which I was addressing myself. I still think that the analogy of the policeman's house makes the right hon. Gentleman's argument totally illogical. Perhaps most illogical of all is the insertion in the Bill of the provision relating to a parsonage house. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the diocesan authorities will allow a parson who has given up the living to remain in a certain rectory which has received an improvement grant——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that question really arises in that form.


The question is the condition under which a grant shall be made. I do not think that these illustrations of what happens to tied or semi-tied cottages really help the situation.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I cannot find the Clause at the moment, but a parsonage house certainly does come within the terms of the Bill relating to improvement grants. That is referred to in a letter which I have from the Ministry on the subject.

Mr. Bevan: That is an entirely different issue. The situation is that an improvement grant is paid upon a parsonage because the ecclesiastical authorities concerned could get possession of the parsonage by due process of law. It is a restricted process of law, or rather the rights of the tenant are restricted. That is an entirely different matter from an improvement grant being paid for a service cottage where no rights of any sort whatever exist.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I appreciate that the Minister finds himself in some difficulty in trying to keep to a logical argument. His argument so far has been that public money should not be given to an owner of a cottage where the occupancy of the cottage goes with the job. He made a most impassioned speech about that and about the home being broken up when the job finished. The hon. Member for Cannock said that it would not be possible for eviction orders to be carried out in respect of colliery cottages as they were in the case of farm cottages. She may remember that I recalled a case during Committee of a widow of a colliery company cashier who had lived in a colliery company's cottage for 30 years, and following the death of her husband, she was evicted by the Coal Board without being given sufficient time even to clear up her husband's affairs.
Although unfortunate cases occur in agriculture and in other industries creating hardships for certain individuals, we are certainly not asking for powers to enable us to cause unnecessary hardship to any of the farming community. All we are asking is that the 200,000 odd agricultural workers who are now living in tied houses should not be deprived

through sheer political prejudice of having their houses improved at great benefit to themselves and no financial benefit to the owners.

Mr. Janner: I am rather surprised that the Debate has taken the turn it has done. The point at issue here is a very simple one. A house which is tied in the manner in which a cottage is tied today is not let in such a way that the tenant has any protection. Indeed, he is no tenant. I would point out to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that he can be ejected without going to court and there is an end of the matter. It is no good arguing that an attempt to retain that right means anything else. It merely means what it says, and that is, that a right is left for the farmer, without giving any reason whatsoever, to turn out the person who is occupying the cottage. That is what the Opposition wish to retain.

Mr. Baldwin: No, the hon. Member is entirely wrong. We have said time and time again on the Floor of this House and upstairs that we do not want the right of summary ejection.

Mr. Janner: That is precisely what I am trying to point out. If the hon. Member does not want that, he has no right to support an Amendment which says that that is what is wanted. I hope that hon. Members opposite will understand what they are asking for because that is exactly what it means. If that does not mean that, I should like to know how they propose to change the position which exists at present.
Another matter raised was that of retaining people in a cottage if they happen to be a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining tenants. That is provided for under existing legislation. If a person under a tenancy agreement is a nuisance or an annoyance and really causes trouble, one has only to satisfy the court that that is so. If what the Minister is arguing were to be brought into effect, one would only have to prove to the court that there was a nuisance or an annoyance to have the person turned out. In those circumstances, those who are supporting the Amendment because they believe that it does not mean that a person can be summarily turned out


are making a mistake, and those who support the Amendment knowing what it means are asking that the right to throw a person and his family into the street should be retained.

Question put, "That 'eigther (1):' be there inserted in Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 79; Noes, 221.

Division No. 156.]
AYES
[8.10 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Poole, D. B. S. (Osweslry)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Astor, Hon. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Renton, D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gomme-Duncan, Coi. A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Birch, Nigel
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boothby, R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bower, N.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Smithers, Sir W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hope, Lord J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Butcher, H. W.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sludholme, H. G.


Carson, E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Challen, C.
Maitland, Comdr J. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Channon, H.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thonneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Touche, G. C.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Cole, T. L.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mellor, Sir J.
While, J. B. (Canterbury)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridgs)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Drewe, C.
Nield, B. (Chester)



Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Odey, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Duthie, W. S.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Elliot, Lieul.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Pickthorn, K.
Colonel Wheatley.


Erroll, F. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.





NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Collins, V. J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Albu, A. H.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cove, W. G.
Hardy, E. A.


Allen, Scholafield (Crewe)
Daggar, G.
Harrison, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Daines, P.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.


Attewell, H. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Haworth, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Herbison, Miss M.


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Deer, G.
Holman, P.


Baird, J.
Delargy, H. J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Balfour, A.
Diamond, J.
Horabin, T. L.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dodds, N. N.
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)


Barstow, P. G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hoy, J.


Barton, C.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Battley, J. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Benson, G.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.


Berry, H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Janner, B.


Beswick, F.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bevan, Rl. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Ewarl, R.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Binns, J.
Fairhurst, F.
Jenkins, R. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Farthing, W. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Boardman, H.
Fennyhough, E.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Bottomtey, A. G.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Forman, J. C.
Keenan, W.


Bewen, R.
Freeman, J. (Walford)
Kendall, W. D.


Bramall, E. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Kenyon, C.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Key, Rt. Hon C. W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gibson, C. W.
Kinley, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gilzean, A.
Kirby, B. V.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Burden, T. W.
Goodrich, H. E.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)


Byers, Frank
Grey, C. F.
Lindgren, G. S.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Longden, F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Lyne, A. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Gunter, R. J.
McAdam, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Guy, W. H.
McAllister, G.


Cocks, F. S.
Hale, Leslie
McEntee, V. La T.


Celliek, P.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvd
McGhee, H. G.




Mack, J. D.
Perter, G. (Leeds)
Titterington, M. F.


McKay, J. (Walllsend)
Pritt, D. N.
Tolley, L.


McLeavy, F.
Reeves, J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Viant, S. P.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Walker, G. H.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Messer, F.
Royle, C.
Watkins, T. E.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Segal, Dr. S.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Sharp, Granville
Weitzman, D.


Moody, A. S.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
West, D. G.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Shurmer, P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Murray, J. D.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilkis, W. A.


Naylor, T. E.
Skinnard, F. W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Noal, H. (Claycross)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Smith, H. N. (Noningham, S.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Oldfield, W. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Oliver, G. H.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Orbach, M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willis, E.


Paget, R. T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Stross, Dr. B.
Wise, Major F. J.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sylvester, G. O.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Symonds, A. L.
Yates, V. F.


Parker, J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Parkin, B. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)



Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Popplewell, E.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Collindridge.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)



Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 25.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PARSONAGES, ALMSHOUSES, &C.)

Amendment made, in page 20, line 34, after "grant," insert:
or a member of his family or a person to whom the interest of the applicant in the dwelling has been devised by him."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 40.—(AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF S. 7 OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS HOUSING ACT, 1945.)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 31, line 29, to leave out "eight," and to insert "five."
Clause 40 extends the period which had been determined on in the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945, limiting the price for which a house may be sold and imposing a penalty on a person who, during four years from the passing of the Act, sells a house at a greater price. Unfortunately it has been found necessary to prolong this period. We agree that it should be prolonged but in the Amendment we suggest that the period of prolongation is unnecessarily pessimistic in the Bill, and that either by that time a greater number of houses will have appeared or there will be a more enlightened Government which will he able to produce houses at a greater rate. The present provisions impose a hardship on anyone who has to move because, instead of selling one house and buying another for approximately the same price, he will

have to sell a house which in 1945 and 1946 was held down to a margin of £1,200 and will need to buy a house which in the open market will certainly cost a great deal more, perhaps £2,000 or £4,000, that price reflecting the great scarcity which exists at present.
The Minister refused to give the local authorities discretion to waive the conditions, which we think might easily have been given. Obviously it is a matter which causes hardship in the case of certain individuals, and as the figure in the Amendment seems to us to be a reasonable compromise, I hope the Minister will be able to accept it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In spite of the conciliatory speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, we do not feel that we can accept the Amendment. In fact, it would be agreed, I think, on all sides that an extension for a further period of one year only would be pointless and that we must have a reasonable further period.
We are very conscious that as long as there is a shortage of houses, without this effective control on the selling price, those who have enjoyed the good fortune of being able to get a licence to build at a very reasonable price would be able to obtain a very much wider margin. Two blacks do not make a white, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has instanced the case of someone who has to leave his house, for example, and buy another at


a higher price in the open market. That particular owner already has had the advantage of the occupation of the house, which he has been able to purchase at a surprisingly low figure in the particular conditions obtaining. Therefore, we do not feel that in that category of case we are imposing any new hardship. The man, is, in fact, having to go into the open market today whereas, apart from the provision of control, he would have had to do that in any case some years ago.
We feel, with regret, that we must continue the operation of this control for a period which in the circumstances we think is reasonable, until we can be assured of a reasonable provision of houses and we can weaken the scarcity demand now existing.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have had Debates on several other subjects and divided upon them but I do not intend to ask the House to divide on this Amendment. I still think the Minister is being unnecessarily pessimistic. Let him put this provision into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and continue it from year to year, which he could do without the necessity of coming forward, as he will have to do if he continues with his present policy, when the number of years has expired and demanding that the matter should still be continued. If, however, he is looking forward to the lightening of his burden and to a position in the cool shades of opposition, I am sure he will agree that the Government which comes in will deal with this, and will deal with it much more successfully. Nevertheless, it is a pity that the Minister is obdurate. We, more in sorrow than in anger, are willing to have the Amendment negatived, but certainly do not wish to withdraw it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 32, line 30, at the end, to insert;
(6) Proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed against the said section seven in respect of a house or building may be taken before any justices of the peace having jurisdiction in the area in which the house or building is situate.
We are carrying out here a promise made in Committee to review the position regarding the proceedings that might be taken for an alleged offence under Section 7 of the Building Materials and

Housing Act, 1945. Originally, it was reasonably held that the court to adjudicate in such a case should be the court in the area in which the purchase of a house was completed. It has now been suggested that this is not always easy to determine and that it may cause hardship in many ways to individuals moving about the country. We have looked into the position and feel that on balance that claim is probably justified. The Amendment, therefore, enables the case to be heard by the court in the area in which the house is situated, although the completion of the purchase in connection with which the offence is alleged may have taken place elsewhere.

Mr. Kendall: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to accept the Amendment which I moved in Committee. For the reasons explained by the Parliamentary Secretary, its insertion will improve the Bill considerably. It will prevent annoyance to those against whom housing offences are alleged by their not having to search the country for the place where completion was effected.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made; In page 32, line 33, leave out "the last foregoing subsection." and insert "subsection (5) thereof."

In line 36, leave out "and."

In line 37, at end, insert:
and
(c) with the substitution, in the last foregoing subsection, for the words 'any justices of the peace having jurisdiction in the area.' of the words 'a court of summary jurisdiction constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland), 1935, sitting in and for the petty sessions district.'"—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

First Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF THE HOUSING ACT, 1936, FOR PURPOSES OF REMOVAL OF REFERENCES TO THE WORKING CLASSES.)

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 38, column 2, to leave out lines 17 to 22, and to insert:
In subsection (5), after the word 'rents' where it first occurs, there shall be added the words 'of houses suitable for occupation by the working classes.'
The Amendment is simple but important. It is not very clear as it stands but if the House will bear with me I


shall give an explanation. It is not often that I make a lawyer's speech in the House but I think it is necessary here. The object of the Amendment turns on the question of the control of rents charged by local authorities. Rents charged by local authorities for dwelling houses are of increasing importance; first, because the numbers of their houses fortunately are increasing; and second, because, alas, in many cases the rents they charge, at any rate for new buildings, are increasing also.
The control on local authorities is very different from the control on private landlords. Private landlords are subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts, which in any individual case nobody can possibly understand but in actual operation give, in most cases, a reasonable rent from the point of view of working-class families. Local authorities are not subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts. They are supposed to have certain standards by which they operate, and most of them have; they are under the fairly direct control of their possibly indignant constituents, who may be their tenants as well.
Consequently, always hitherto—at any rate, for a good time—they have had a double duty or check which, though very different from the other, has not operated too badly. This is to be found in Section 85 of the Housing Act, 1936, which is entitled "Conditions to be observed in management of local authority's houses," and which contains two provisions laying duties upon a council in fixing the rents. I shall read the second first because, logically, it comes first. Subsection (6) of that Section says:
The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes, either of rents generally or of particular rents, and rebates (if any) as circumstances may require.
At first sight it looks as though they may do as they like, but there are many reasons in law as well as in practice why they cannot. As a matter of fact, what they do is to seek to fix rents, when subsidies and everything else have been taken into account, which will make the houses no great burden on the rate fund by reason of the rents charged to the tenants.
8.30 p.m.
It does not work too badly, but there are bad councils, and I remember one

which secured a Tory majority on 9th November of a certain year and where the housing committee began to revise the rents on "the said 9th November," as the lawyers would put it, and revised them pretty drastically and put into the housing account all sorts of items that ought not to have been there at all. The other restriction which was made, and which at the moment is still laid on the housing authorities under the Housing Act, is in subsection (5) which says:
In fixing rents"—
I think everybody agrees that means fixing rents from time to time, and not merely the first time—
the authority shall take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality …
and it then goes on to make a provision which does not concern us here.
So the housing authority has two checks on it. The first is that it must fix rents fairly in the performance of its duty, and the second is that it must have regard to the rents ordinarily payable by the working classes in that locality which has meant in substance for a good many years that they must have regard to the rents ordinarily payable by the working-classes for other similar property which is, in fact, allowed by the Rent Restrictions Acts and in that indirect way the Rent Restrictions Acts come into force. In fact, there is a sort of ceiling, rather like a cloud which can be pushed about a little, and the authority know that in fixing the rents—this will, perhaps, be more familiar to hon. Members on this side with their local government experience than to me as a lawyer—they must keep an eye on the ceiling provided by the Rent Restrictions Acts to the houses around that are in private ownership. I have seen it working and it works fairly well, although it has led to litigation where local authorities of a bad type have been astute enough to pile various items into the account in order to raise the rent.
Now we come to what the Government are seeking to do in this Bill, and I suggest to the House that in this instance they are applying a rule, which is of use for some purposes, in a manner which just makes it detrimental to the interests of tenants by taking away that ceiling altogether. What the Bill sets out to do,


as explained in Section 1, is to extend the provisions of the Housing Act
so as to enable account to be taken of the housing conditions and housing needs of all members of the community.…
Putting it more concisely, the protection given to the working classes is sought to be given to rather wider circles, and for some purposes they want to take out of the Bill the reference to the working classes which would limit that operation. Consequently the First Schedule to the Bill—which is one with which we are pretty familiar in modern legislation and which I do not think is too bad—enumerates a number of Amendments to be made in the Housing Act, 1936, in order to remove references to the working classes. I say that where the effect of that is not to rob the working classes of any protection but only to extend it to other people it is admirable. But when we come to the words which I want to change and which are in page 38 of the Bill, what the Government wish to do is to leave out the words which are in subsection (5) of Section 85—
In fixing rents the authority shall take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality,
and substitute a subsection which will say:
The authority"—
and then, picking up the latter part of the sentence,
may grant to any tenant such rebate from rent, subject to such terms and conditions, as they may think fit.
The direct result of what the Government are doing will be to say to any Tory council, or possibly even to others, "Hitherto when you have been fixing rents for working-class dwellings you have had to bear in mind and to have regard to the rents charged around you, and, broadly speaking, that meant that you have been prevented from charging higher rents for similar accommodation. Very often your accommodation is better than the rent restricted accommodation around, and then you could charge a little more, but all the time you have had that elastic ceiling and your working class tenants have benefited by that. Now we, the Labour Government, in the Housing Bill tell you that you need take no notice of that in the future. All you

need do is fix the rents under the following subsection, and review the rents from time to time. You will have a much freer hand in increasing the rents and we, the Labour Government, tell you that you can have that additional advantage over your tenants."
I did not wish to take up the time of the House on a matter like this without first having some discussion with the Minister. Beyond one of those happy phrases which we used to get from Tory Ministers about the time not being opportune, the line which the Minister took was, "I do want to keep out of this Bill references to the working classes." He does not propose to abolish the working classes; he only proposes to abolish references to them. I should have thought that the real answer to that was; abolish references to them by all means, when the only result of doing so will be not to hinder the working classes, but to help others, but do not abolish them when the result will be to injure the working classes.
The Minister, however, seemed to think that it was almost a matter of honour, or perhaps a fetish, to remove all references to the working classes. So I checked up on the Housing Act, 1936, as altered by his Bill. I see that he leaves words referring to the working classes in eight other sections for the very good reason that that helps the working classes rather than hinders them, and in three other sections again the words are left in because they refer to old statutes, and it would be impossible to leave out the reference.
From the point of view of trying to get rid of the words, the interesting part is that Part V, the part of the Housing Act which contains Section 85, is entitled, "Provision of Housing accommodation for the working classes," and the Minister has left that intact. He seeks to prevent injury to the working classes by suggesting that he must get the words "working classes" out of a Section which is in a Part of an Act which prescribes the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes." I hope that either he will produce a better reason—which does not seem to me to be very likely—or else he will make some accommodation by way of accepting this Amendment.
As is the way of lawyers, I seem to have done almost everything except draw


the attention of the House to the Amendment which I have moved. At any rate, for a lawyer, I have not taken very long. What I want to do is to take this Section and amend it so that it shows that this particular limitation is applied on behalf of members of the working class and not only for other people. In fact, if I may go back to subsection (5), as it stands, this is what it says:
In fixing rents the authority shall take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality.
The Minister might advance—he has not advanced it hitherto, but he might well advance it—the argument that that will not do because he wants the authority in due course to supply houses for people other than the working class and, in fixing rents for people who could pay substantially more, it would not be right to take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes. So, instead of the Amendment which the Minister puts forward I seek to insert the words:
of houses suitable for occupation by the working classes.
I want to insert those words at a suitable point and, whilst the language will be a little clumsy, the meaning will be clear. The words will then run:
In fixing rents of houses suitable for occupation by the working classes the authority shall take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality.
I submit that that both carries out the Minister's general policy and also retains for the working classes the protection which they have had under the Housing Act of 1936. It seems to me that that is what should be done. Having at any rate made the matter clear for myself, I leave it there.

Mr. Austin: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has quite properly called the attention of the House to what some people might consider to be a mistake and I think it is perfectly proper that a reply should be made. One of the answers to him is of course, that one of the reasons why we have dropped the words "working classes" is not only because local

authorities now provide accommodation for much more diverse sections of the community but also because, so far, nobody has defined the term "working classes." It has been found to be incapable of definition. What my hon. and learned Friend is doing is re-importing into the Bill a term which we have left out because——

Mr. Pritt: I am not re-importing it. You left it in eleven times yourself.

Mr. Bevan: In the Act of 1936, I agree. But that is not the issue before us at the moment; the issue before us is the Bill before the House. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is now suggesting is that, having struck it out, I should now bring it back again. What we have done in the first part of the Bill is to eliminate references to the housing of the working classes.

Mr. Pritt: The right hon. Gentleman must permit me. I called attention three times to the fact that he has not removed it from the Bill; he has removed it from the Bill except for 14 places.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: So far as this matter is concerned, it is impossible for me to accept the wording which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests because what he argues is that the local authority, in fixing rents, should have regard to the rents paid by working classes in the area. My difficulty is, and the difficulty of local authorities has always been, how to define "working classes" in the area. As we are now providing accommodation for more diverse sections of the community it is becoming increasingly difficult.
There is one other point, too. The local authorities are becoming some of the biggest landlords. In fact, there are one or wo town councils. I think—I am speaking from memory—that not only are the biggest landlords in their areas but have more than half the houses in their areas. So we should have a tautological situation; the local authority in fixing the rent of a council house should have regard to the rents of council houses. That is purely tautological—to say the local authority, in fixing the rent of a house, should have regard to the rents it has fixed. So we should reach a situation which would be quite impossible.
Indeed, it is not correct to say that the ceiling to which my hon. and learned Friend referred has always had such an influence on the fixing of rents as all that. What really determines the level of rents fixed by a local authority is the amount of financial assistance given by the State and by the local rates for the building or improvement of the houses. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will provide local authorities with grants to enable them to improve the dwellings of people in their districts—which they have the power to do now; but if they did it now they would have to charge such high rents as to make the houses intolerably highly rented. So we say to the local authorities, "You have this power. You cannot exercise it. We will make a grant to you so that you can exercise it in such a manner as will not cause you to charge rents which are intolerably high." So what in fact makes the rent to the tenant tolerable is not this or that formula but the amount of financial assistance the State gives to the local authority.
It is the same thing in regard to houses generally. The State makes a contribution, and before the local authority can fix rents it must make its own rate contribution. It cannot escape rate contribution. Then the local authority can charge what rent it likes, because, having received the Government grant, and having paid the rate contribution on the house, the local authority is entitled to charge such rent as, taking those two factors together, will give an economic rent for the house.
Was the formula which my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned at one time an effective ceiling? It was, I believe, in 1919 or 1920 a formula applied to what we now describe as the Addison house, when there were only a few council houses in a district, and when the rate contribution was limited to a penny rate. They had to have some criterion for the fixing of council rents, and so it was said the councils should fix rents conforming to those paid by other people for similar accommodation in the locality. My hon. and learned Friend was quite right in saying that. That was, in fact, an effective ceiling.

Mr. Pritt: And is today.

Mr. Bevan: And is today; but the ceiling is becoming less and less effective

in fixing rents. What actually fixes a rent today is the financial relationship between the State subsidy on the one side and the local authority rate subsidy on the other. If it found that the rents that are being charged to people—not only to working class people, but to those who are in the occupancy of council houses—proves to be burdensome, that burden arises, not because of the nature of the formula used for fixing the rents, but because the financial assistance given to the local authority is inadequate. What would occur if the local authority were compelled to keep its rents down? It could not attract more State subsidy and would put the rent up by way of increased rates. So we are not out of the vicious circle at all. It is not the formula that will help us.

Mr. Pritt: Rents will go up as a result of this Bill, if it is not amended.

Mr. Bevan: No, the rents will not go up as a result. I admit that it is not a common case but it is a case that is growing more familiar. Suppose we take an ideal case. Suppose all the houses were in possession of a local authority, and suppose this formula did operate as a means of keeping rents down, or that the rents under the formula and the rate of subsidy and the state subsidy were not sufficient to provide an economic rent. Then the local authority would have to charge in the form of a rate what it does not charge in the form of rent, so the rates would be up. The comprehensive rate would be up and no benefit would accrue to the tenant. He would clearly pay in the form of a ratepayer what he is not being asked to pay in the form of a tenant. We do not, therefore, obtain from this the relief which I admit has been received in the past and would again be received were it not for the fact that we are providing for reasonable rents to be paid by other formulas and not merely the formula of comparison.

Mr. Kendall: Suppose there is an estate—I know one in my town where I live called Cherry Orchard—where the rents are about 10s. 6d. a week. Presumably that would be a house which the right hon. Gentleman would refer to as being suitable for the working class. Next door there is a new estate going up where the rents are 24s. or 25s. 6d. a


week. If this Amendment were accepted, would it not mean that the local council could not put up the rents charged for the old estate houses to the 25s. charged for the new?

Mr. Bevan: No, because by doing so it would have to decide that the tenants living in the old rented houses were members of the working class but the other people were not members of the working class. In other words, it would say that the people occupying the lowest rented houses in this area were by definition the working class. The working class in an area are much more heterogeneous than was formerly assumed. This is a formula derived from the day when it was easier to define those below the salt and those above the salt than it is at the present time. I do not wish to continue language of that sort in a modern statute.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think that it is true, as the Minister has said first, that the term is now obsolete, and it is foolish to import into an Act of Parliament, even in one instance, a term which is obsolete. The efforts of all of us should be devoted to eradicating the term so far as possible.

Mr. Pritt: So you have left it in 14 times because it ought to be taken out?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not excuse importing it once more by saying that it occurs in other cases already. If he were devoting his skill toward eradicating the term where it does exist, there would be some meaning in the argument which he has presented to the Committee.

Mr. Pritt: We find that in the Housing Act as it is proposed to be amended by this Bill references to the working class are in fact left in 14 times, including the title of a whole Part, and that surely destroys the argument that the reason it is being taken out of this particular Clause is because it is being taken out of the Bill as a whole?

Mr. Bevan: I suggest that it is unreasonable if for purposes of convenience we leave the term "working class" out of the 1936 Act to import it into this Act.

Mr. Pritt: It is not a question of importing it into this Bill. Surely the Minister

realises that this is a question of amending the 1936 Act. What the Minister is doing is leaving it in the 1936 Act 14 times but taking it out in various places, including the places where he admits that to take it out pushes up the rents of the working class.

Mr. Bevan: No. What nonsense!

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not mind being interrupted once, or even twice, or even in a three-cornered fashion, but I fear that if continued there would be multi-angular interruptions, which none of us could really usefully pursue.
The point to which I draw attention very shortly is that, of course, the arguments adduced by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), and commented upon by the Minister, show the inevitable end of the process upon which we are embarking that is to say, we get into a position where, as there are no more private owners left who can be compelled to produce accommodation at below cost price, the accommodation has to be produced by the community, which then must pay for the accommodation either by a direct charge upon the occupiers of the accommodation or by a subsidy drawn from the pockets of exactly the same people.
That stresses enormously the third factor, to which the Minister did not refer: that rent depends not merely on the amount of financial assistance contributed by the State and by the local authority, but on the third factor, the original cost of the building. That stresses enormously the importance of keeping down, by every possible means, the cost of building.
Apart from that, the community will inevitably find itself in the position which the Minister so clearly put. If it keeps down the rents it pushes up the rates, so that therefore somehow or another the economic rent has to be found. That is the dilemma with which we are not directly faced, but towards which we are rapidly moving, for, as the Minister has shown, as many as a half, and in some cases as many as two-thirds of the houses are owned by the municipalities, so that the diminishing area from which the other contributions can be drawn is automatically becoming very rapidly less almost every day, and we shall eventually be faced with the position, as the Minister pointed out, where all the burden will fall


upon the occupants of the houses directly, either by direct tax in the shape of rates or by direct contribution in the shape of rents.

"Section ninety-two (Loans by Public Works Loan Commissioners to companies, &amp;c.)
In subsection (1), the words "for the working classes," in the first place where they occur, shall be omitted and for the words "which may be made suitable as houses for the working classes" there shall be substituted the words "which the association desire to purchase with a view to the improvement thereof"; in subsection (2), for the words "or any other company, society, or association" there shall be substituted the words "or any company, society or association (not being a housing association)"; in subsection (3), the words "(being houses which have been constructed or made suitable for the working classes by the company, association, society, or person receiving the loan)" shall be omitted; and in the proviso to subsection (5) and in subsection (8) the words "for the working classes" shall be omitted."


—[Mr. Blenfcinsop.]

Third Schedule.—(ENACTMEMTS REPEALED.)

Amendment made: In page 43, line 28, at end, insert:
In section ninety-two, in subsection (1), the words "for the working classes" in the first place where they occur, in subsection (3), the words "(being houses which have been constructed or made suitable for the working classes by the company, association, society, or person receiving the loan)," in subsection (5), in the proviso, the words "for the working classes," and in subsection (8) the words "for the working classes."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Title

Amendment made: In line 13, leave out from "amend," to "and," in line 16, and insert:
other enactments relating to housing and domestic water supply."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill now read the Third time."—[Mr. Bevan.]

8.59 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I rise for only two or three minutes to seek information. I must apologise in advance to the Parliamentary Secretary, in that I have to leave after I have spoken, but I hope to see his remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning. I understand that the price for a three-bedroomed house is £1,500. The charges for that house are 29s. 5d. per week rent, including rates and water rate on top of that there is £16 10s. Government subsidy, and a £5 10s. local subsidy, which means another 8s. ——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think the hon. Gentleman's remarks have anything to do with the contents of this Measure. If they have,

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made; In page 38, line 33, at end, insert:

perhaps he would indicate where. Otherwise, I am afraid that he is out of Order.

Sir W. Smithers: Then may I ask this question? In view of the Debate which has taken place, would the Minister consider a scheme which has been put forward, whereby instead of insisting on 960 super-feet——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: I do not want to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I do not feel that I can allow this Bill to pass without calling attention to one very bad blemish in it. In general, I think it is an excellent Bill, excellently devised, which will do a lot of good, but in regard to the matter of grants I think there is something which is a very bad blemish indeed. I and other Members on this side of the House called attention to this matter during the Committee stage. Whereas we thoroughly agreed with the reconditioning of old properties where they were structurally sound as a good policy, and we also agreed it was necessary that some form of inducement should be given so that the matter could be proceeded with expeditiously, we did not agree that this was the best way to pursue the matter. We felt that the proper means was not this method of grants but the method of loans.
It was argued on both sides that there was no essential difference between the two. I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel


Elliot) argued that both grants and loans carrying very low rates of interest, were forms of subsidy and were therefore exactly the same thing. We disagreed with that, and I disagree with it very much indeed. There is an essential difference in principle in the matter. I think the Minister agreed that there was such a difference, but his line of argument was that the difference was very obscure because there was not very much being given to private landlords. I have never heard that before as a defence of departing from a principle.
The Minister himself laid down that principle very clearly and strongly in connection with the 1938 Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I have no intention of quoting at length what he said in regard to grants to private owners, but I think I am entitled to call attention to the fact that he referred to it as "shovelling out" public money to landlords. The present Minister of Agriculture also condemned that same method of procedure equally strongly and in equally strong terms.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be going into a good deal of history and I have not heard him relate it to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Chamberlain: I hope that I am in Order because I am dealing with the principle introduced in Clause 19, the principle of extending grants beyond local authorities to private landlords. I am attempting to argue that that is a principle which is wrong in itself and is a principle which has been condemned by the Minister himself. The Minister said in 1938 that we wanted new houses and not reconditioning, and he puts that forward apparently as an argument why what was wrong in 1938 is right in 1949.
That seems to me to be a very curious argument indeed. We still want new houses rather than reconditioned houses, and I fail to see that that is justification for the Minister going back on that principle which he condemned so thoroughly in those days. The other reason he puts forward as to why this was justifiable now was that 10 years have gone by, during which owners could not do anything. I think that it is more a matter of repairs than reconditioning. If houses need reconditioning

now they probably needed it in 1938. What my right hon. Friend so wholeheartedly condemned in that year he now seems to support. I, at any rate, must condemn that change of front towards this matter of grants.
I could argue at length, though I will not, about properties which are to be reconditioned with the aid of State grants, and the money which will go into the pockets of private landlords. It is inconceivable that properties which have been improved and reconditioned with the aid of State money should not be of greater value, and should not be able to fetch a better price than they would have done without that reconditioning. State money is actually being put into the pockets of private landlords. The Minister has made it clear, however, that where owners are not prepared to go ahead with reconditioning it will be possible for local authorities themselves to acquire and recondition the properties. I call attention to this because I think it is most important that local authorities should be aware of the power which they have to acquire properties under Sections 72 and 74 of the 1936 Act. Where owners are unwilling, in spite of these rather excessive inducements, I very much hope that local authorities will take steps to acquire the properties and recondition them, although I hope the whole process will be carried out gradually so as not to interfere with the building of new houses.
I referred to housing associations hi the Committee upstairs, where I said that the wording of the Bill might not enable these associations to carry out all kinds of housing, including extensions referred to by Section 80 of the 1936 Act. Although the Minister did not amend the First Schedule in this respect, I want to put it on record that he has stated that there are full powers to deal with this matter.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Hare: I do not intend to follow for long the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) in the private feud which he has been conducting with great logic and pertinacity for several weeks past——

Mr. Chamberlain: It is not a feud; it is only some advice.

Mr. Hare: It is advice which has been freely offered many times.

Mr. Chamberlain: One must keep on.

Mr. Hare: As a neutral observer in this performance I congratulate the Minister because he bowled out the hon. Member middle stump, first ball, every time. If the hon Member feels miserable because, as he thinks, public money is being shovelled into the pockets of private landlords he should vote against the Bill.

Mr. Chamberlain: I am neither feeling nor looking miserable. Secondly this is a most excellent Bill and it would be most illogical for me to vote against it because of this one point, on which I hope the Minister will yet be instructed.

Mr. Hare: I would never insult the hon. Member by saying that he looks miserable, but whether he feels it or not is a matter for him.
We on this side of the House are going to support this Bill in its Third Reading, as we supported its Second Reading. Many of the provisions in this Bill are things for which we have fought day in and day out since the Minister of Health first occupied that office. I only regret that it has taken the right hon. Gentleman so much longer than it should have taken. He should have been prepared to listen to us sooner.
This Bill will enable a large amount of conversion and reconditioning to take place. As I indicated, it would have been better if these powers had been granted both to local authorities and to private landowners in 1945 when there was, in fact, a shortage of material but a reasonable supply of labour. By waiting as long as this it means that the full benefit that we might have obtained from this Bill will be minimised by the alteration in the situation within the building industry. I am sure that our view was right. It was right then, and I am certain that the Minister is right now to bring it in, but it should have been done sooner. Our view was based not only on our own feeling, but on impartial evidence supplied first of all in 1945 by the Silkin Commission dealing with conversion and by the later evidence of the Hobhouse Report.
In the final stages of the Debate on this Bill we must ask ourselves how many people today would be living in homes of their own, if, in fact, the Minister had not been so obstinate in delaying this Bill so

long. The reconditioning of houses in rural areas was badly set back when the Minister repealed the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. In the towns practically little or no permission has been given by the local authorities for this type of work. Therefore, we welcome this provision for the conversion and reconditioning of houses and we regret wholeheartedly that the Minister did not come to this decision very much quicker than he, in fact has.
We also welcome within the terms of the Bill the loans and guarantees for owner-occupiers and owners. We welcome also the fact that amendments are being made to the 1946 Act, and that there will be extra grants for expensive sites, for allowing local authorities to convert in local materials, stone, etc. Local authorities will also be encouraged to carry out new methods of building. I shall shortly speak about the extent of the sums which it is proposed shall be payable under the Bill to local authorities and to individual landowners. We feel that the Minister has overstepped himself in this sudden conversion towards the property-owning democracy, which he has admitted on several occasions just lately, by subsidising people who are prepared to spend as much as £5,000 on reconverting a house, and that it is hardly justifiable, when local authorities and others are only able to spend——

Mr. Austin: The £5,000 which the hon. Gentleman mentioned is not to be used for reconversion. It is the limit for purchase alone. The limit for conversion is £600.

Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pulling me up on that point. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and I therefore withdraw what I said upon it.

Mr. Alpass: The hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) has overstepped himself, as he suggested the Minister had done.

Mr. Hare: So much for the terms of the Bill, which we appreciate. The Minister of Health, like all human beings when they do something good, has not done everything entirely to our liking. I must call attention to one or two of the provisions of the Bill which, despite a very great deal of good advice from us, the Minister has insisted upon retaining. The first thing we are worried


about is the failure to concentrate money where it is needed most. By allowing loans up to £5,000 we feel that the Minister is granting money to people who would be capable of providing the money out of their own pockets. When public money is brought into the matter we must be satisfied that it goes to the needier sections of the population and that there is no question of the better-off people getting preferential treatment so long as the requirements of the other people remain unfulfilled.

Miss Lee: Would the hon. Member say that the better-off people should borrow money at 4 per cent. instead of being loaned it at 3¼? I want to be clear what the hon. Member is talking about.

Mr. Hare: I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not know what I am talking about. I know that it is her view that every person in the community, whether rich or poor, has a right to receive subsidised services out of public money.

Miss Lee: This point came up in the Committee several times. I believe that every citizen who pays his full rates and Income Tax is entitled to the benefit of educational and health services, and housing facilities, and to have the advantage of them, or to be served according to his needs.

Mr. Hare: That is precisely the point. That is the great difference between what hon. Members on this side of the House feel and what those who agree with the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) feel about it. We feel that those benefits should be given to the neediest section first. If there is enough to go round, I should be prepared to consider the hon. Lady's argument.

Miss Lee: There will always be enough to go round if we so regulate our rates and Income Tax that all of us pay according to what we are able to pay. Then with a clear conscience we can take what we are entitled to take.

Mr. Hare: We have not yet moved into the Utopian world which the hon. Lady has in mind. We are dealing with 1949. This Bill will be on the Statute Book very soon. It is no use the hon. Lady using an argument like that. If all were in a position to pay the same Income

Tax, we should all have a right to enjoy equal benefits. We feel that there is a danger that money may be spent out of public funds on people who could be helped from other sources than those of the local authorities or the Exchequer.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Member here referring to loans by local authorities at the Public Works Loans Board rates?

Mr. Hare: Yes.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Surely that is not a question of subsidy?

Mr. Hare: There is an element of subsidy if a local authority is able to lend at a lower rate of interest than the ordinary market interest.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Not at all.

Mr. Hare: We had this point out at great length in Committee, and I know that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not agree with us, but we say that there is an element of subsidy in these loans at low interest.

Mr. Alpass: Where does it come in?

Mr. Hare: I hope that the hon. Member will make his speech, if he has the opportunity, a little later on.
The next thing which worries us is that the Minister in Clauses 7 and 8, despite every opportunity given to him by us, is definitely going to allow local authorities to compete unfairly with private enterprise traders. I say that advisedly because the Minister has failed to meet us in what we considered to be a just argument, namely that local authorities must compete on equal terms with private enterprise. We have suggested to the Minister that he should insist upon laying down a definite period within which these local authorities should be able to say that they are running their laundries or their furniture selling businesses on a profitable basis.
The Minister has refused to define what he considers "a reasonable period of years" during which these businesses are to be set up. He has not lived up to the pledges which he and his hon. Friends made on Second Reading when they indicated that they did not wish there to be any element of subsidy in either the laundry proposals or the proposals about the selling of furniture. We regret that


nothing has been done in spite of the ample opportunity which the Minister has had to create the effect which we wanted.
The next thing is that the Minister in excluding the tied cottage from the reconditioning grant has, whether he likes to admit it or not, and I know he will not, conferred a definite hardship on a great number of agricultural workers who, because of the limitation imposed by the Minister, will not benefit from reconditioning work which would have been carried out if he had not taken the attitude which he has done.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Member mean that landlords, in the countryside, for example, will refuse to enjoy improvement grants simply because they will not allow their tenants to have the reasonable protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Mr. Hare: I am saying that there will be quite a large number of landlords who will not accept the provisions of this Measure because they do not wish to untie their houses. Whether they are right to do it or not is another point, but the practical effect is that a large number of agricultural workers will not benefit, whereas they might have done so if the Minister had not excluded the tied cottage from the benefits of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The tied cottage is not in the Bill and the hon. Gentleman is out of Order in referring to it.

Mr. Hare: There are a number of good things in the Bill and a number of bad things. On balance my hon. Friends will support the Third Reading, but we utter one word of warning. This Bill will remain just a piece of paper unless productivity in the building industry is increased. The most alarming thing this afternoon was that the Minister did not restore the over-crowded minimum conditions laid down in Part IV of the Housing Act, 1936. That is significant, because one of the great justifications which the Minister gave in introducing this Bill was that housing conditions in this country were much better after 3½ years of his term of office at the Ministry of Health than in the years before the war. The fact that is has been necessary to waive the conditions of minimum overcrowding, laid down as long ago as 1936,

when the wicked Tories were in power, shows what an immense amount has still to be done to provide new homes for the people of this country.
We think the Bill will be a small contribution to the general drive to provide modern homes for our people, but even this small contribution does not alter the fact that we need a radical change in the present housing policy, which is giving little more than half the output from the same labour force at three times the cost compared with the period before the war. That is the blunt fact. Fortunately the sands are running out and, within a comparatively short period, it will be possible to have a Government which really will concentrate on providing houses for the people.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Austin: The hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) has referred at such great length to the imaginary flaws and blemishes in the Bill that I put it to the Opposition that there remains only one course for them to adopt tonight, and that is to go into the Division Lobby and vote against the Third Reading. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member gave a very qualified approval to the Bill and then began to talk about its disadvantages. The fact is that the Opposition cannot be honest with themselves to the degree of congratulating the Government when they bring before the House a fairly good and substantial Measure which will alleviate the housing troubles of the population of this country, troubles due directly to the maladministration of past Tory Governments.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If as the hon. Member says these housing troubles are really due to that cause, then the right time to have brought in this Bill was 1945, and not 1949.

Mr. Austin: In the terms used by my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, matters relating to the Business of the House ought to be addressed to the Lord President, and I take no responsibility for the programme of the Government in relation to their legislative timetable. The fact is that the Opposition cannot for a moment indulge in this dangerous luxury of recrimination concerning the past, particularly in this matter of housing for the people.
I wish to make reference to two matters. First, I want to congratulate the Minister, if I may, on his handling of the Bill and the acumen and grasp he has shown of legal matters. I also want to pay tribute to his realism on two points, first, in resisting the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) who tried to make a case against grants in a most abstract way. They referred to the Minister's previous arguments in 1938 relating to subsidies of public money going into the landlords' pockets without addressing themselves to the realities of the situation. I am very grateful that my right hon. Friend has resisted these arguments, which certainly do not apply today when the need of the public in relation to accommodation is so desperate. Above all, I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the arguments of my hon. Friend to accept as true today the overwhelming arguments which he advanced in 1938. They were irresistible then, but however eloquent and intoxicating they may have been, the Minister was able to resist them today.
The point which arises out of the grants that are being made to private landlords with which to recondition and improve their properties is a real and vital point in this transition period. It is that if we cannot get landlords, by virtue of appeals or by virtue of permissive legislation, to respond to the needs of the public in relation to housing, or anything else, then we have to bribe them and attract them by making a grant in precisely the same way as we have done to hill farmers and to cotton spinners. I maintain that the Minister is being quite logical and consistent in making these grants to private property owners with a view to their improving their properties and thus improving and providing more accommodation for the people who need it.

Mr. Chamberlain: As my hon. Friend has mentioned my name, I would like to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) and I, have not resisted the idea that there should be subsidies. What we have said and have tried to make clear is that the subsidies should be in the form of loans at low rates of interest and not as free

grants, which is essentially different in principle.

Mr. Austin: My hon. Friend knows very well that I repudiated that argument in Committee. I pointed out that if it were to be done by way of loans, very few landlords would take up loans whereas we hope that many will take up the grants.
But this is the warning I want to give to my right hon. Friend in this matter. I believe that the effectiveness of this Bill can be undermined if landlords do not take up the grants. Whatever may be the intention of the Minister, if these grants are not attractive enough to encourage private landlords to improve their properties, a great deal of good in the Bill will be undermined. I suggest to the Minister that at the end of a year after the passing of the Act he should review the position and see how many applications have been made, how many have been approved and how much work in connection with improving property has begun. I believe it is a matter of vital interest and importance to the community. Then if the Minister finds that there has not been a satisfactory response, he knows very well, as he has pointed out in Committee, that the local authorities have powers to requisition the appropriate property and put it in order for tenants. I hope these powers will be used if necessary.
This Bill has eliminated the term "working classes," and hon. Members on both sides of the House approve of it. It has also raised the amount of money which local authorities can lend to prospective house purchasers from £1,500 to £5,000. On that issue there is only qualified approval, and that is on this side of the House. It would appear from those two factors that we are attaching a great deal more importance to the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, and for the first time we are giving prospective house purchasers increased scope by raising the limit to £5,000. We are putting them into a position in which local authorities can compete with other resources in the country whose rates of interest are infinitely dearer—4 per cent. as against 3¼ per cent.—and whose standards of building and surveying have been proved to be worse. Hon. Members may dispute


this, but there is the classical case of Mrs. Borders v. the Bradford Third Equitable Building Society which illustrates the point.
For the first time we are able to provide facilities financially better than those of other resources. For this to be effective, however, we must ensure that the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts are operated. The position at the moment is that out of approximately 1,400 local authorities in this country only 684 have taken up the permissive powers in the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, and of the 684 it is very difficult to assess how many authorities are actually operating the Acts. I once spurred one of my local authorities into action by asking them when they were going to operate the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. Only tonight in this Chamber I saw a letter which referred to the operation of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts by one local authority, stating that they had passed all outstanding mortgages up to 1933 to a building society, and that from 1933 onwards they had not operated the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, neither had they helped a single purchaser to avail himself of the facilities provided by the Acts. That is a Lancashire local authority, and that state of affairs might be found to be reflected on very large scale all over the country.
I suggested that the Minister should advertise or ask the local authorities to advertise the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. He has compromised and is going to send out a circular. I have met people who have not known of the provisions of those Acts. There are many hundreds of thousands of people in this country, possibly would-be purchasers of houses, who do not know of the existence of the Small Dwelling Acquisition Acts. I hope that the circular which the Minister sends out will be a very strong one, but if the response is negligible, as I have reason to believe it will be, I feel that the Minister will not be putting this Bill into effect in its most practical and beneficial form unless he takes stronger action to bring to the notice of the public at large the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. With those reservations I wish the Bill God-speed and I hope it will do a great deal to

alleviate the suffering of our people in regard to accommodation.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I do not propose to detain the House for very long, but I want to welcome this Bill because of the increased powers which it gives to local housing authorities. I welcome powers to provide such services as meals and restaurants, laundry facilities and the supply of furniture. This Bill makes it quite clear that the local authorities, many of whom have wanted to do these things in the past, will now have power to do them without the fear that somebody will come along and say that they had no legal power to take this action. I am sure that in many parts of the country these powers will be very valuable and will be well used.
I am also glad that the maximum for loans granted by local authorities has been raised to £5,000, but I cannot for the life of me understand how the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) can convert that into a subsidy. The people who take these loans will pay interest to the local authority granting the loan, and anybody who has had any experience of the granting of loans by local authorities knows that there is no subsidy from the rates at all. There is a facility, a lower rate of interest, but does anyone object to that? It is quite false to suggest that the increase in the power of the local housing authorities to raise loans up to £5,000 is in any way a subsidy. People will have to pay for it.
I might, perhaps, have been more impressed by the hon. Member's argument if he had said that he was opposed to the giving of free grants to builders and private owners who might do some reconditioning or conversion. He was quite prepared to agree to that, which was quite clearly and obviously a subsidy from the State and the local authority. On the other hand, I did not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain), whose argument, it seemed to me, quite easily might have resulted in an even larger grant to the people who took up what he wanted to be cheap-rated loans for reconversion work.
I am glad that the Bill provides for subsidies for conversion and re-conditioning but, unlike hon. Members opposite, I do not believe it will produce very much


more accommodation in this country. The hon. Member for Woodbridge referred to London, but already tens of thousands of houses have been converted in London. I forget the exact figure; I have not it with me. I believe, however, that since the war over 30,000 houses have been converted to family accommodation by the housing authorities in the London area. Although this inducement to private enterprise to do some conversion may produce more, it would be a mistake to suggest that it will lead to a very large increase in the total accommodation for the people of this country.
I want, in particular, to welcome the proposals for hostels. I believe that one of the most valuable pieces of housing work that any local authority in a large town can do is to build hostels for its young single people and for its old people. This Bill provides a special subsidy for it and makes it possible for housing authorities to take the matter up with more energy. Already many housing authorities have given consideration to this matter, but they have been rather shied off by the financial implications. I could not for the life of me understand why the hon. Member for Woodbridge talked as he did about the building trade workers' output since the war. It is quite wrong to blame the building trade workers for there being what he called a 50 per cent. output since the war.

Mr. Hare: I did not say the building trade workers. I said the building trade.

Mr. Gibson: That is the same thing, is it not? The truth is, as the hon. Member said, that we need more houses; but if there is to be an argument as to what has been done I personally am quite content to depend on the figures of homes provided for the people of this country by this Labour Government since the end of the war—nearly one million homes for the people—homes in which they are living now and which were not there when the war ended. If a Tory Government can beat that, good luck to them. At any rate, it cannot be said that some very great effort has not been made in the provision of homes for the people since the end of the war in very difficult circumstances—certainly much more difficult circumstances than those with which

any previous Tory Government that I can remember had to deal with in the matter of housing. I, therefore, welcome the Bill, and I hope it will be actively implemented by all the local housing authorities of this country.

9.45 p.m.

Miss Lee: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I should like to put a point of view rather different from that of the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), who began by saying that if we had had this Measure—which is essentially one of reconditioning—a few years ago, we could have had more houses. His case, as I understood it, was that this was a good Bill, or a fairly good Bill, but that it would have been better if we had had it sooner. My fear is based on the opposite view. On all sides of the House we want reconditioning to be done, but my fear is that this Bill may be a bit premature rather than too late.
Now that we have reached the Third Reading we must realise that once the Measure has passed from us to the local authorities, how good it is will depend on how the local authorities operate it. If I could be sure that there were in control of the local authorities everywhere men like my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) I should feel safe, because I should know that the local authorities would respect she terms of both the majority Hobhouse Report and the minority Report which I ventured to put in myself. Both reports stressed the fact that still the first priority is the building of new houses, and we must be quite certain that there is labour and material available for normal repairs. Reconditioning has to take its place within that framework, and not oust either new building or repairs.
I am quite happy about this Bill in the hands of the enlightened authorities. I am nervous about it in the hands of some authorities, particularly in rural areas, that have shown a suspicious eagerness all the time for grant-aided reconditioning, accompanied by a suspicious reluctance to get on with the building of council houses to rent to working people. That happens to be a fact. We in committee guarded against the position as well as we could. If it is made quite clear, not only to every


kind of local housing authority but to all the housing authority officials, that this Bill is not for making condemned property, or property that ought to be condemned, come within the terms of reconditioning, if we see there is no gerrymandering, and that there must be essentially sound work to last for 30 years, then I think the House can congratulate itself on having done a good job.
We have to be a little careful on this side of the House that we do not forget the great good in the Bill, because there are one or two parts of it on which we had some rather strong disagreement. It was, at least, triangular disagreement, because some of us started by saying that as a general principle we did not like public money being given to private landlords. We think it is much safer in the hands of public authorities that can be called to account. We felt that where landlords were able to do a job themselves they should do the job themselves, and that where they were not able to do it financially, they should be relieved of the responsibility. If that were so in a report dealing essentially with rural houses, this Bill, which deals with both rural and city property, makes it much more complicated.
I, at least, congratulate the Minister that in accepting the principle of grants, he has hedged it round with so many conditions that I do not think any hon. Member opposite has any undue reason to be elated. I think that he has taken good care to see that the advantages are going to the tenant. Twenty years on there may be a new side to all this, but I think that housing will not be a problem that will worry this country if we conduct ourselves at all intelligently.
The last thing that I want to say, because it came up again and again in Committee, about whether I am anxious to see Mr. Rank given a subsidised council house is that my answer is "Yes." I do not see why Mr. Rank or any other man or woman of excessive wealth or their children should be excluded from any citizen facilities. If we really want to get a pleasant democratic Britain and real happiness and to get rid of bad manners and the crudities of class distinction—whether this type of school is fit for some and not for others, and this type of house is fit for some families and not for others

—we have so to plan our resources, whether in respect of health, education or housing, that we are providing a choice.
Some people may prefer, although they have great wealth, to live in rented houses. They may be doing a mobile job. Other people, although comparatively poor, may prefer to own their own houses. Surely it is an enlightened and democratic thing to present them with a choice. This Bill, by the loans that it is giving, gives that choice. This is not a perfect Bill—there has never been such a thing as a perfect Bill—and I think hon. Members opposite have more reason to be disappointed with some of its Clauses than we have—but in the main it is a very good and democratic Bill, and it will help enormously in the next phase of solving our housing problems and raising our standards. If we take good care to see that our local authorities are enlightened local authorities, that new houses are still first priority, and that normal repairs must not be kept out of the picture, then we can congratulate ourselves on this Bill.

9.49 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I should like to answer one or two arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). When she was speaking I could not help remembering the speech which the Minister made earlier in this Debate. It was at a time when some of my hon. Friends were moving Amendments asking that the local authorities when arranging for the selling of furniture or the hire-purchase of furniture by tenants, should submit trading accounts for a certain period of years. The Minister on that occasion, castigated us for lack of confidence in the democratically elected local councils. The hon. Lady seems to have an even greater lack of confidence that the local authorities will not abuse the provisions of this Bill by giving licences for reconditioning houses at the expense of their housing programmes.

Miss Lee: Not Socialist ones.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: The hon. Lady has greater faith in her own party than I and many other people in this country. Possibly she would give us the same assurance about the running of the trading accounts in respect of the furnishing of tenants' houses by Socialist dominated


councils. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will in his reply say something about the housing record of rural authorities during the last three years, because although I have not got the exact figures with me I think that the hon. Lady was wrong, and that—as I have heard the Minister say—the record of rural district councils is just as good as that of any other councils, whether urban or borough, throughout the country. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give that assurance.
I support this Bill for the same reasons as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin), in that it gives a grant to private owners of property to do reconditioning work, although my arguments for supporting it for that reason are rather different from those which he advanced. He, as I understood it, supported these provisions because he said that the grant had now to be given as a sort of bribe to people to do this work. In my opinion, that is an unfair statement. A grant has to be given today because of the very wide gap between the cost of repair work today and the rents which can be charged, or the increases which can be made, under the Rent Restrictions Acts.
I hope that owners of property are as philanthropic as anyone else. Indeed, there is nothing to stop the hon. Member himself, if he is so minded, using his money to recondition property for no financial return. I would remind him and others that although we often hear about the exorbitant returns which come from the ownership of this particular type of property, these rents are subject to Income Tax, maybe Surtax, and certainly last year to the Special Levy, and today some encouragement is required, if rents are to be kept low, to induce people to repair this property. I think that most fair-minded people would admit that the greatest benefit from these grants goes not to the owner but to the occupier who pays a low rent.
I wish to conclude by saying that on the whole I support this Measure. I, like the hon. Member for Cannock, agree in hoping that it will not stop the new housing programme, because that is more important. Unlike the hon. Member for Stretford, I do know that a great deal of reconditioning is being done today without

any grant. I am certain that we can put our faith in local authorities, whether they be Tory or Socialist, to see that the Bill is worked in a proper manner.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In this Third Reading Debate we have had a further presentation of very many of the arguments that we have heard throughout the progress of this Bill. That is, of course, not surprising. We have had put forward from different sides of the House the main objections to as well as the reasons for supporting the different provisions of this Measure. Both my right hon. Friend and I have been pleased at the, on the whole, friendly reception which this Bill has had and at the constructive discussions that have taken place upon it, both in Committee and on Report today. I think we would agree that the Measure we now present for Third Reading is an improvement on the Measure originally introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) has again raised the issue which he has put forward on many different occasions: his strong and vigorous opposition to the payment of direct grants of any kind to private owners of property. At the same time he goes on to insist that he would prefer to cloak these grants in the different name of loans at privileged rates. As my right hon. Friend has insisted on many occasions, such privileged rates of interest are nothing more than a grant in a different form.

Mr. Chamberlain: I wish to make it clear that the reason why I prefer a subsidy in the form of a loan at a low rate of interest is because the State retains the asset, whereas if there is a direct out-and-out grant, it is lost to the State.

Mr. Blenkinsop: One of the great dangers about an indirect subsidy of the form my hon. Friend has suggested is the fact that it is indirect; it is not always clear that the subsidy is being provided. There is a great deal to be said for a direct grant, because everyone knows it is being paid. Furthermore, as my hon. Friends have remarked, these grants have been hedged around with very careful safeguards to ensure that the value inures to the benefit of the tenant, who has been our concern all the way through, rather than to the landlord.
The hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) has raised a series of points which he and his hon. Friends raised during the Committee stage. He has again said that it would have been far more preferable to have introduced this Measure some years ago. We take the view that it would have been highly dangerous to have brought in these proposals before this date. I have some sympathy with some of my hon. Friends who have expressed their doubts as to whether this will not syphon off a great deal of labour and materials which still ought to be concentrated upon the prime and most vital job of providing new houses.
It is true that we must be very careful in the administration of this Measure to ensure that it does not have that effect, because it is still true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has mentioned, that our most urgent need is for new houses. This Measure will test whether or not there is that pool of labour and materials available in some quarters that can be used for this very valuable work of improving houses, which otherwise might fall into bad condition, to the great benefit of the tenants concerned. My reply to the hon. Member for Woodbridge is that we are convinced that had we introduced this Measure some years ago it could only have resulted in a reduction in the number of new houses that have been built.
I am glad to pay a tribute to the work of local authorities, both in the rural and urban areas, for what they have been able to do. It is perfectly true that there has been a very real development in house building in the rural areas throughout the country. That is clear to anyone who cares to travel about the country today. It is a very encouraging feature, and it is something that offers a real prospect to the agricultural worker to get over his most serious remaining grievance. It is in direct contrast to the new building done in the rural areas in past times. I am very glad indeed that this has been possible in these areas, and I hope it will be possible to continue this concentration upon the building of new houses both in the rural and urban areas. The Bill gives us an opportunity of going further and finding out whether, in certain areas at any rate, it might be possible to do a good deal of useful improvement work without

in any way interfering with our prime and most urgent need.
The hon. Member for Woodbridge also, to my surprise, took some objection to our ensuring that loans can now be made by local authorities, either under the Housing Acts direct or the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, up to a total of £5,000. As my right hon. Friend said at the time, this appeared to him to be a desirable change which he thought hon. Members opposite would wholeheartedly welcome. Instead of that we have found that they are prepared to support loans of £3,000 to £4,000, but not beyond that limit for some curious reason that still to some extent escapes me.
There is also on the benches opposite some objection to proposals that local authorities should undertake the provision of desirable ancillary services which, in my view, make all the difference between monotonous, unimaginative housing development and imaginative and creative housing development. Laundry services, refreshment facilities, the provision of furniture and suchlike are all a natural part of modern housing provision, a necessary and useful part of the social service of housing which the Government are tackling so energetically. We can assume that Members opposite are so anxious to defend the private interest of normal trade channels in the provision of these services that they are prepared to forget very often the needs of tenants of houses and the value that can come from a local authority undertaking the provision of these services in a properly planned way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) referred to the question of advertising the facilities of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. He will recognise that not only can local authorities lend money under these Acts, but they can also lend it direct under the Housing Acts. It is our desire to ensure that everyone shall be acquainted with the facilities which these Acts provide and, by administrative action rather than by changes in the statute, we shall see so far as we can that people throughout the country are well informed of the new facilities that are open to them. I do not think they are so ignorant of them as my hon. Friend imagines. Indeed, the great interest shown in this part of the Bill as soon as it was introduced and the


great amount of discussion there has been about it show that the public are well informed about the matter.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) that we must keep careful control administratively of this Measure to ensure that the facilities that are made available to private owners of property shall not be abused. We shall certainly ensure that in the administrative measures we take local authorities will be fully advised of the Ministry's attitude.
The Measure itself is inspired by a real imagination and desire for a new constructive drive. The Bill has been welcomed in all parts of the House, for many of its Clauses, and I am quite sure that the provisions of this Bill will do a great deal in future years to ensure that very many people, who would otherwise have to endure very bad conditions in their houses, will have brought to them much needed improvement. This is a constructive Measure, which should be taken together with the general housing provisions that have been made by this Government, and is a continuing sign of our concern for the welfare of the general public and of our continuing understanding of their prime need. I am glad to give this Bill my support in its Third Reading, and I hope it will not be long before it reaches the Statute Book and provides benefits for the general public.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I wonder if my hon. Friend would be good enough to deal with one point, which is disturbing the minds of many Members and the majority of local authorities. I refer to the present interest rates for money lent to councils for housing purposes, and I wonder whether some steps might not be taken to revert to the cheap money policy of 2½ per cent. interest rate on loans, which would have a beneficial effect on the whole housing activities of the various councils. It is obvious that if an increased interest rate is to be borne by local authorities, especially in the areas where they cannot raise a large amount of money on a penny rate, considerably increased amounts will have to be borne, and if the Government will give assistance to these authorities, which need not necessarily be incorporated in this Bill but adopted as general policy

devised by the Cabinet, it would be greatly to the benefit of the country.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is a matter which cannot be discussed tonight, but must be raised on a more suitable occasion. We are not dealing with general interest rates.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: On 30th March I asked the Postmaster-General the following Question:
Whether the public relations officer to his Department is an established civil servant; and what age-limit attaches to the appointment.
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
The present public relations officer to the Post Office is not an established civil servant. In accordance with the general practice in the Civil Service about unestablished officers, no age limit attaches to the appointment.
I then asked this supplementary question:
But as an established civil servant, aged 62, was removed to make room for this Socialist ex-Minister, who is now nearly 68, and who has had his salary increased from £1,350 to £1,700, can the Minister say how much longer this particular example of patronage is going to continue?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I do not think there is any question of patronage whatever. This man was put in because he was able to do the job, and he is still doing the job very well indeed.
After a supplementary by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross, Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), I said:
In order that the House and the country may be better informed of the particulars of this appointment, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1208–9.]
My opportunity comes this evening.
My object is to pursue this matter a little further and to make certain investigations. I wish to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will be good enough to elucidate certain points to us. May I make it clear from the outset, because it is important, in relation to what I have to say, that I am not acquainted with, and indeed have never met, the gentlemen whose names I am now to mention? I assure the Minister that there is here no case of personal advocacy or antagonism and that I believe the principle here involved to be one which affects hon. Members in whatever part of the House they may sit.
Brigadier G. C. Wickins, C.B., C.B.E., was appointed Public Relations Officer to the Post Office on 1st February, 1945, being then aged 60 years and seven months. He was released from the Antiaircraft Signals to take the post. He was transferred to other Post Office duties on 1st May, 1946, for a few months, pending his retirement in October of that year at the age of 62 years, three months. Apart from his absences during two great wars, in both of which he rendered distinguished service in the field, this gentleman had been in the Post Office for 44 years.
He was released on 1st May, 1946, to make way for Sir Drummond Shiels, another gentleman whose record in the first world war was extremely gallant. He returned from it decorated with the Military Cross. At the time of his appointment to this public relations office at the Post Office his age was 64 years, nine months, making him now 67 years, nine months of age and still holding the appointment.
He was, as hon. Members will be of course aware, Under-Secretary of State for India in the Socialist Administration of 1929 and subsequently he was Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in the same Administration. Since then he has rendered other public services of value to his country. He served on a special Commission on the Ceylon Constitution and he was deputy-secretary for some time to the Empire Parliamentary Association, a body which hon. Members of all parties belong to, and value. He is a qualified doctor, but he has had no previous experience—and this is, after all, the important point—of either Post Office work or the intimate working of public relations. In

short, he appears to have been appointed to this class of public relations, early during the lifetime of this Government and before many of their great Measures had reached the Statute Book, as one who has been well qualified to publicise nationalisation and its merits to the public, by demonstrating its virtues in the Post Office.
Neither the hon. Gentleman who has come here to reply, nor his chief the present Postmaster-General, were at that time in office. The Department was at that time in the hands of the noble Lord the Earl of Listowel, and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke). Reference to HANSARD will show that I queried this appointment on the ground, which seemed to me to be odd, that a gentleman of 64 years of age should replace one of 62. So much for the appointment. I now turn to the duties attached to it.
The responsibilities of the post have considerably increased. During the time of the previous Public Relations Officer the Department comprised a publicity section, a Press section and a sales section. In pre-war days there was also attached an excellent general Post Office film unit under the control of this officer. There is no film unit now, and the sales section is no longer under the control of the Public Relations Officer. All that remain are the publicity and Press sections. Moreover, in pre-war days one of the functions of the public relations department was to persuade people to become telephone subscribers. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that that form of propoganda and persuasion is not necessary at the moment. Nowadays, so far from there being a shortage of subscribers, we shall find common ground in saying that there is a shortage of telephones, and indeed there is a proposal before the country to fine fairly heavily those who have been unwise enough to instal telephones in their houses, by the raising of the charges which they will have to pay.
In these circumstances, with the removal of these various activities from the Department, it seems odd, to put it mildly, that the salary of £1,350 per annum drawn by Brigadier Wickins has been raised to £1,700 for his successor. The first question I must put to the hon. Gentleman is: Why is there a higher remuneration for decreased responsibility? I must ask him this, too, because it is very relevant: Has there been any


comparable rise in any section of the established staff, as the result of the trade union negotiations which have been patiently carried on since 1946? I think I am right in saying that the U.P.W., one representative of which I see opposite, are at this moment endeavouring to negotiate a general increase of 12½ per cent., while the increase to the Public Relations Officer represents something in the vicinity of 25 per cent.?
I can see one possible explanation of this. I do not know whether I am right, but the hon. Gentleman will probably reply that the first public relations officer ever appointed to the Post Office by the late Sir Kingsley Wood was Colonel Crutchley, who received a salary of £1,650 per annum in 1935. It was stated that that was to conform to his previous salary level. I have investigated that and have found that Colonel Crutchley was a Post Office man in his origin. For many years he was transferred to the Ministry of Transport and from there to Australia to deal with the migration problem, and he probably returned here with a salary of something like that category and that may be the reason why he drew that salary at that time. However, that is a digression from the main matter before us.
I must ask the Assistant Postmaster-General this question: Why was it necessary to appoint an outsider of nearly 65 years of age, with no Post Office specialised knowledge, to replace an experienced established official nearly three years his junior? Why retain that outsider in his appointment years after the age at which an established civil servant would be compelled to retire? I do not think it is unfair to ask: Why appoint an outsider at all, and particularly a Socialist ex-Minister?
When the time came for Brigadier Wickins to go, was it really impossible to offer the post to another established civil servant of experience and personality there? There was one available. I will not mention his name because I think it would be invidious to suggest an alternative to an appointment which is already in existence, but the Minister will recognise at once I am sure, that when the Post Office went into publicity one of their most successful discoveries was a former Post Office Press officer, whose

work both there and in the Middle East during the the war won deservedly high praise and who is still in the middle fifties. He would surely have been the ideal man, but instead he was allowed to go to London Transport, because, presumably, of the resolve to appoint an elderly and pliant politician.
Apart from him, surely there are established civil servants in the administrative grades of wide Post Office experience who could fill this post with conspicuous success, but if not in the Post Office establishment, surely throughout the Civil Service establishment as a whole. After all there are now 694,000 from whom to choose. In any case, how long is the present Public Relations Officer to continue in this appointment—unto three score years and ten or unto four score years?
I end as I began. This is no personal vendetta—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No. I have met none of the gentlemen mentioned, that is what I meant by saying that this is no personal vendetta.

Mr. Cobb: If the hon. and gallant Member will excuse me——

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am afraid I cannot give way. I am pursuing the appointment, as I have done for three years and one month——

Mr. Cobb: A vendetta.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: This is no personal vendetta. I hope I shall not be told by the hon. Gentleman that I am attacking a distinguished civil servant unable to defend himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are."] The Lord President of the Council has asked us to give instances of where we think unsuitable appointments have been made to nationalised industries. This gentleman is certainly distinguished. I said so at the beginning. However, he is not a civil servant in the generally accepted sense of that term. I am criticising the appointment and not the man. The Minister can quite properly be asked a Question and defend the appointment on the Floor of the House, and I have raised the matter in the hope that he may now do so.

10.28 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend has introduced this subject at all. It is always difficult and


embarrassing to hon. Members here when what will be interpreted as an attack upon a public servant is brought before the House. I have the privilege of serving on the Advisory Council of the Post Office, I have been in touch with the present Public Relations Officer for some years, and I can bear testimony to the admirable service, in season and out of season, which he renders to the Post Office.
The gentleman referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend was a Member of this House for a considerable time. He was a member of His Majesty's Administration. Subsequently he became assistant secretary of the Empire Parliamentary Association and was in that office for a period of five years. Those of us who have been associated with that work, receiving visitors from all parts of the Dominions and Colonial Empire, have the greatest admiration for the tact and skill and spirit of service rendered by him.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I said all that.

Sir P. Hannon: Yes, my hon. and gallant Friend said all that, but he said it in a way which can be interpreted unkindly and I do not like that sort of thing in this House. I am a peacemaker in this House whenever I intervene. During the time this gentleman has been at the Post Office, I have had many consultations with him. More than that, I have had the opportunity of consulting those outside who are competent to express an opinion on the efficiency of his work and, believe me, in the Press there is universal agreement that his contact with all the channels of publicity which make for the development of this country in all its aspects of social service, has been regarded as highly acceptable.
I think it a great pity, when a public servant has rendered work of that kind, that we should criticise him in this House and make his future work an embarrassment. As a matter of fact, I understood that this gentleman wished to retire from his position at the Post Office some time ago, but because of the work he was doing so efficiently and the service he was rendering to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General and the Director-General of the Postal Services, he was asked to continue his service. I resent strongly any attack in this House, either

implied or expressed, in which a public servant is brought under unfair criticism. I conclude by bearing my testimony to the quality and character of this public servant, and I say that he deserves the confidence of this House.

10.30 p.m.

Sir William Darling: The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has quite properly said he is not attacking the person, but is attacking the desirability or suitability of this person for the office. I should like to declare my interest and say that from my personal knowledge of the officer in question, this public servant has indeed far more of the qualities for fulfilling this office than many of the appointments the Government have made. In the past I have sincerely attacked the Postmaster-General for his administration, but in this instance he has appointed a man who has every personal quality necessary for the job. When I first knew him he was a member of the Tariff Reform League. I do not know whether this will commend him to my hon. and gallant Friend. Subsequently he was engaged in business in the city of Edinburgh. He served in the First World War and won the Military Cross. I saw him fighting in battle with a gallantry as great as any man has shown. Later he was a member of Edinburgh Town Council. All these were public relations. He qualified almost at middle age, as a doctor. He thought it his public duty to enter this House, but he is a doctor of medicine. After that his career is well known to the House.
I submit that this record of service, apart from his personal qualifications, justified the Postmaster-General in his appointment. Why should age be against him? Age should be no bar. Voltaire wrote "Candide" at 64. It may well be that the P.R.O. of the Postmaster-General's Department is such an officer. Who will say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who is well past the age of 65, has lost the capacity of effective public relations? The Government know very well his competence in this field; if not, they will know at no distant date. I declare again my interest. It is impossible to imagine another appointment which will be so well justified by capacity as this particular one.

10.32 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): My task this evening has been made all the easier by the interventions on behalf of the Public Relations Officer of the Post Office of the two hon. Members who, out of their knowledge of the individual concerned both personally and in their official capacities, have spoken so well with regard to his appointment. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) was at great pains to say that there was no vendetta against the P.R.O., but if there has been no vendetta, there certainly has been a campaign of disparagement. Of that, I am convinced.
It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member to say at the outset that he raised this question in March this year. In point of fact he has been pursuing this matter for over three years. My predecessor, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) was asked in April, 1946, by the hon. and gallant Member:
What is the age of the new P.R.O. for the Department and what was that of his predecessor on retirement?
The reply was given, and the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary was to the effect:
Are we to understand that this exacting task of public relations is now to be regarded as suitable gainful employment for a superannuated Socialist ex-Minister?
Then the hon. Member for Holland (Mr. Butcher) asked:
Is it not a fact that this is an admirable appointment?
The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Robinson) asked:
Is it not a fact that this appointment was made purely on merit and that this person is a first-class public servant?"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 11th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 2070.]
These questions were not asked by hon. Members on this side, but by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which I think is sufficient proof that the general feeling in this House is that this is not a political appointment. Certainly it is not.
I have been asked one or two direct questions, which I shall endeavour to answer. Before I do so, I think it is necessary that there should be a certain amount of background given. The late Sir Kingsley Wood appointed the first P.R.O. to the Post Office, Sir Stephen Tallents, and he came from outside the Department. It is true that he had Civil

Service experience, but he did come from outside the Department. The subsequent appointment was Lieut.-Colonel Crutch-ley, who was later seconded to the Home Office. During the war, public relations practically ceased to exist, and the machine was just kept going by a series of assistant secretaries.
That brings me immediately to the suggestion, or insinuation, that the present holder of this office has not so many men under his control, and therefore has less responsibility. I think I am quoting the hon. and gallant Member fairly. In point of fact that may be so, as far as the predecessor in the office, Mr. Wickens, is concerned. He had not the whole task which falls upon the present holder of the office. He did only part of the job. He had not the whole of the responsibility. He was perfectly aware, within nine months of the appointment being made, that as far as he was concerned, he had no right to expect that he would become the permanent Public Relations Officer to the Post Office. That was made clear to him. So he cannot claim to have been unfairly treated.
What we endeavoured to do was to find a person who was suitable for carrying out the job. Soundings were made, people were interviewed, and, in the opinion of the previous Postmaster-General and of his officials, Sir Drummond Shiels's was the best possible appointment. I think that that has been proved beyond peradventure, because we have had no complaint about the efficiency of the holder of this office. I have a series of quotations made by people paying tribute to his work. I shall read one of them, and am prepared to give to the hon. and gallant Member the source of the information later. It reads:
If all public relations departments were like yours, news-editors would have fewer grey hairs and reporters fewer duodenal ulcers.
That does not seem to be the case of a person who is inefficient—if he can satisfy the Press, who would be critical, particularly if they were aware of the fact that this person happened to be a Socialist ex-Minister.
Regarding the salary, I have heard the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness claim that he is always in favour of the rate for the job. In this case we are paying the rate for the job. No special


rate is being given to the present holder. The hon. and gallant Member does raise a real principle here. If we are to follow his argument—I hope I am being fair, and I have endeavoured to pay particular attention to the questions he has asked—I must say that frankly I do not like his approach to this subject. I think he has a political bias, and that he has allowed this bias to get the better of him in his approach to this question of the Public Relations Officer to the Post Office. I deplore that.
Let us consider this question as an ordinary appointment. The fact is that Sir Drummond Shiels is a Socialist ex-Minister and the Government claim the right to appoint people to posts without regard to their political affiliations. I think that all sides of the House will agree so far as that is concerned. What the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness is asking us to do is to apply a political test and only to appoint people who are non-political, and, by inference, Conservative.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: No.

Mr. Hobson: I think that is true. It follows from what the hon. and gallant Member said. That would be tantamount to banning all Socialists from holding appointments. It would be political patronage of the worst type if that came to pass. I think that is the logical consequence of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member. We are satisfied that Sir Drummond Shiels is doing a good job and that he is efficient. It is true that had he been a permanent civil servant he would by now have retired. That is accepted. But it is not unusual to

appoint to specialist jobs of this character, people brought in from outside who are allowed to continue working beyond the normal retiring age. As has been pointed out by intervention, if we are going to raise the question of age, we shall cast reflections on Members of both Houses of Parliament who are over that age, and the hon. and gallant Member will be casting a reflection on his own Leader—and I am sure he does not intend to do that.
I deplore the fact that the hon. and gallant Member has raised this matter. There is no question of political jobbery, log-rolling or nepotism. It was a straightforward appointment, and the person who got the job was the most able of those who presented themselves for the post. I am convinced that the Post Office is getting good service from Sir Drummond Shiels and will continue to get good service from him. I do not think that the person who only partially held the job has been ill-treated or badly done by. He has been fairly treated. He was never led to believe that he would become the permanent Public Relations Officer of the Post Office.
Therefore, I can only say that I regret the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness has seen fit to raise this matter. I feel that it is somewhat deplorable, and it is certainly neither honourable nor gallant to attack a civil servant who is not in a position to reply for himself.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.